IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13899 of 2003 JANARDAN PRASAD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 08.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally. The allegation was that he delayed in delivering certain orders of this Court on a writ petition by 15 days leading to delay in compliance of the order. The departmental enquiry report was one of exoneration. Differing with the same the impugned order of punishment dated 8.5.1997 came to be passed for forfeiture of increments for six months equivalent to one black mark which shall not have any effect on his future pay. This order came to be affirmed in appeal on 9.5.2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a short point for consideration that before the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of enquiry report of exoneration, the disciplinary authority was obliged to give him a second show cause notice disclosing at least briefly nature of the allegation, materials already available on the record in the enquiry and the reasons why on those materials he proposed to take a view different from that of the Enquiry Officer. The pleadings for non compliance of the procedure has been urged in Para 19 of the writ application. The counter affidavit at Para 17 does not deny this factual position. In absence of proper procedure having been followed before imposing punishment after differing with the enquiry report of exoneration which is now considered facet of the principle of natural justice the order of punishment and the appellate order become unsustainable in law. They are accordingly set aside. The writ petition was filed in December 2003 and has remained pending before this Court since then. In the nature of the allegation not involving any financial embezzlement/ misdemeanor or acts of moral turpitude the allegation being of mere delay to place the court’s order, in the entirety this court is not persuaded that it shall be in the interest of justice at this belated stage to remand the matter to proceed afresh from the stage of irregularity. The impugned orders dated 8.5.1997 and 9.5.2001 are set aside. The writ application stands allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)