IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.601 of 2008 AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Anil Singh For the respondent no. 1 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, JC to AAG – I Respondent no. 2 to 6: Mr. Vikash Kumar (BISCOMAUN) P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 19th August, 2008 We heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. The single judge in paragraphs - 6 & 7 of the order considered the matter thus: “As stated hereinabove, the learned Enquiry Officer found shortage of 231.90 mertric tons of coal, after giving the petitioner the benefit of 2 ½% of the stocks by way of commercial shortage. Learned Enquiry Officer further found that this should be evaluated @ Rs.321/- per metric ton which was really the price of stone coal. The learned disciplinary authority has disagreed with the findings of the learned Enquiry Officer in details, namely, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of shortage to the extent of 2 ½% of the stock, not permissible by the established procedure, and he has further disagreed about the price of coal. In his opinion, the learned Enquiry Officer has really found shortage of fuel coal which was priced at Rs.675.35, and not stone coal which was priced at Rs.321 per metric ton. In my view, the disagreement to this extent is clearly indicated in the show-cause dated 9.11.2000 (Annexure 15), calling upon the petitioner to explain his position. The petitioner did show cause. It is thus evident 2 that the reasons for the disagreement which is indeed as to the details, has been clearly indicated in the show-cause notice. There was no disagreement in so far as the main or the basic findings are concerned. The grievance is thus unmerited. It , therefore, follows that the learned disciplinary authority was fully justified in passing the order for recovery of the amount for the reasons clearly indicated in the second show-cause notice, and the petitioner was also liable for punishment. The contention is rejected. I must now deal with the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order does not assign reasons in support of the order. It appears to me on a perusal of the impugned order that the learned disciplinary authority was in full control of the materials before him, as briefly summarized the position in the impugned order which shows application of the mind. He is not expected to write a detailed order like the enquiry report. His order has to be read with the detailed discussion in the enquiry report along with the reasons assigned by him for disagreement in default in the show-cause notice. It would bear repetition that the learned disciplinary authority has substantially agreed with the findings of the learned enquiry officer and has only disagreed in details. The contention is rejected.” 3. We find no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the single judge. 4. Letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted and it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-