9. Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned Government Advocate No.7 appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar, on the other hand, has submitted that there were two documents, referred to in the charge-sheet itself, on the basis of which the department intended to prove the charge in the departmental proceeding. He submits that since the said documents could not be denied by the petitioner, non-examination of witnesses during the departmental enquiry would not vitiate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He has relied on a decision of this Court, in case of Ajoy Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar , reported in 2011(3) PLJR 430 , with reference to paragraphs 19, 20 and 21, to contend that if the allegation is not specifically denied, the same are not required to be specifically proved by the Department in a departmental enquiry by adducing evidence. He has submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner, the punishment imposed on her cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
