IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4967 of 2003 S.K.BARANWAL @ SANJAY KR.BARANWAL Versus THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES & ORS ----------- 5 13.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was proceeded with in a departmental proceeding after service of memo of charges. Enquiry report came to be submitted upon which followed an order of punishment dated 16.8.2000 at annexure 6 which released him from suspension, and ordered stoppage of one increment and that he was entitled to full salary for the period of suspension. The order records a finding of partial guilt of the petitioner, by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this court to the specific pleading in paragraph 15 of the application supported by annexure 7 that he asked a copy of the enquiry report to enable him to represent against the same. Dealing with the same in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit the respondents state that the punishment was minor and the petitioner never asked for a copy of the enquiry report. This obviously is contrary to the specific pleading of the petitioner which has not been denied. The petitioner, however, represented against the punishment to the best extent that he could. By an order dated 21.6.2001 punishment has been enhanced to censure and stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and that nothing beyond whatsoever paid during the period of suspension was payable. It is - 2 - submitted that prior to the enhancement of punishment, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Dealing with this averment in paragraph 21 of the writ application the counter affidavit at paragraph 6 seeks to justify on the power of the superior administrative authority to review the order of punishment passed by a subordinate authority. That no notice to show cause for enhancement of punishment was given is not denied. The initial order is itself in violation of the principles of natural justice when copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. If the initial order be invalid, the subsequent order can not stand. In any event the latter order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders of punishment dated 16.8.2000 and 21.6.2001 at annexures 6 and 12 are accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. shahid (Navin Sinha, J)