IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1687 of 2010 Bhudeo Prasad Yadav @ Bhudeo Yadav S/O Late Sital Prasad Yadav R/O Sidhi Ghat (Near Bishari Asthan), P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur, Retired From The Post Of Panchayat Secretary, Block Office- Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria. .........Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 3. The District Magistrate, Khagaria. 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Khagaria. 5. The Block Development Officer, Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria. 6. The Block Development Officer, Khagaria, P.S. and Distt.- Khagaria. 7. Abhay Kumar Singh S/o not known to the appellant/petitioner, District Magistrate, Khagaria. ...........Respondents/Respondents ----------- 02 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3335 of 2010, dated 13.09.2010, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. The petitioner in the writ petition, challenged the second part of the order of punishment, by which the petitioner was awarded a punishment that he shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and except the subsistence allowance. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned single Judge did not consider the provisions of Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code and a division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Dinesh Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) P.L.J.R.- 514. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is misconceived, Rule 97 (3) is applicable where an Officer was under suspension and is reinstated. This decision has to be taken under Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code with regard to the period of suspension. Another provision relating to take a decision with regard to the suspension period is provided under Fundamental Rule 54(1) b, where the Officer is dismissed or removed from the service. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the enquiry report, submitted that by the enquiry officer in which the petitioner was exonerated, the District Magistrate/Punishing Authority without giving a different cogent reason, disagreed with the enquiry officer and passed the punishment order. It is settled law that in case the punishing authority differs 3 from the enquiry report, a fresh enquiry is required to be held or non appreciation of some material related to the misconduct has to be indicated in the order which has been ignored by the enquiry officer and that material is sufficient for punishment. Thus, in view of Division Bench judgment (supra) and in view of the reasons recorded above, we allow the appeal and set aside the punishment order. There shall be no order as to costs. Safik (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)