IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5034 of 2011 SHYAM SUNDAR PRASAD CHAURASIA, SON OF SRI JAMUNA PRASAD MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUNJABI MOHALLA, NAYA BAZAR LAKHISARAI IN THE DISTRICT LAKHISARAI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF G.M.-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF BEGUSARAI ----PETITIONER Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1 2.THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3.THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4.THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA----------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Dinu Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma & Shiv Kumar Prabhakar Advocates For the Board :Mr.Anand K. Ojha, Advocate For the State :Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ----- 2. 23.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner seeks quashing of the Office Order dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure-1) issued by the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board by which the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why appropriate punishment be not imposed upon him after disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally by the authorities of the respondent Board. The enquiry officer 2 exonerated the petitioner of the charges. Subsequently show cause notice dated 27.4.2010 was issued which was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.J.C.No.12408 of 2010 alleging that the same was a composite notice giving the reasons for difference as also proposing punishment which is not permissible in law. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file second show cause reply highlighting the submission made in the writ application that the said notice is a composite notice which is not permissible in law. It appears that the authorities have issued the present impugned Office Order dated 7.12.2010 stating that since the petitioner has not filed his reply taking the stand with respect to the reasons given for difference with the enquiry report another last opportunity is given to him by the present order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present impugned order dated 7.12.2010 suffers from the same infirmity of not only disagreeing with the reasons given in the enquiry report but also imposition of proposed punishment and such composite order cannot be allowed to stand. On a consideration of the impugned order dated 7.12.2010 this Court does not find that any punishment has 3 been proposed in the same; rather, reasons have been assigned for differing with the report of the enquiry officer and the petitioner has been directed to file his reply as to why appropriate punishment be not awarded to him disagreeing with the enquiry officer. The same cannot be said to be a composite order in any sense of the term as it is understood. The order does not disclose any proposed punishment. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra : AIR 1998 SC 2713, if the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the view of the enquiry officer exonerating the preceedee from the charges it must disclose reasons for the disagreement and the proceedee must be given opportunity to meet those reasons. That appears to have been done by the impugned order dated 7.12.2010. Hence it cannot be said that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kunj Behari Misra case (supra). For the said reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/