JUDGMENT :

Harish Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for private respondent no.1.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred against the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 23415 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to set aside the order of removal dated 15.10.2019 of the respondent-writ petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and salary for the intervening period, if he has not worked elsewhere.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the order, inter alia, mainly on the ground that when the High Court was of the opinion that there was violation of principles of natural justice at the level of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority in the present case, after quashing the order of removal, ought to have remitted the matter and permitted the disciplinary authority to proceed with the departmental enquiry from the stage at which fault was noticed. In support of the aforesaid contention, he vehemently relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Mahesh Dahia (2017) 1 SCC 768.

4. The further contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, while assailing the order under appeal is that the respondent no.1-writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor ‘on contract’ and for his proven misconduct he could have been removed from service merely by giving one month notice as charge of forgery was proved against the delinquent beyond doubt on the basis of the report of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of Railway, Danapur Division. He further submits that objection of personal bias of the enquiry officer could not be established only on the ground of he being the Member of the Board of the Governor of the National Institute of Technology, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIT Patna’). He lastly submitted that the suggestion of the enquiry officer regarding quantum of punishment only reflects his concern about nature and gravity of offence.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the order under appeal has been passed after taking into consideration the various irregularities committed in the departmental proceeding, apart from the fact that the impugned order of punishment suffers from non-application of mind, as there was no consideration of the explanation given by the respondent no.1-writ petitioner. He further submits that the order under appeal has taken note of the fact that an enquiry officer is supposed to be an independent adjudicator; however, the materials available on record suggests that enquiry officer has carried bias against respondent no.1, which fact is fortified from the enquiry report, wherein he recommended for exemplary punishment. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the fact that in absence of deposition of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, ECR, Danapur, the contents of letter dated 26.02.2015, on the basis of which charge is said to have beeen proved, remained unestablished, as neither the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, ECR, Danapur was examined nor the contents of the letter has been proved by oral evidence.

6. Before considering the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, it would be apt and proper to give the factual matrix of the case.

7. The respondent no.1 was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (on contract) in the Department of Humanities and social Science at NIT, Patna vide letter no. NITP/4363/14 dated 17.09.2014 issued under the si