IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12555 of 2005 GULAB CHAND RAM SON OF LATE BABULAL SAH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KHILAN GANJ, BAULIA ROAD, SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAIMUR , BHABUA 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR ESTABLISHMENT, KAIMUR, BHABUA 5. THE CONDUCTING OFFICER-CUM-ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY, KAIMUR, BHABHUA. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, CHAINPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR. ----------- 3 06/09/2010 A short question which has been raised by the petitioner against the imposition of punishment order contained in annexure-2 is that the disciplinary authority has not issued any notice to the petitioner on the question of disagreement and the finding given by the enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner on the four charges. In absence of any notice for disagreement coupled with the fact that even a second show cause notice was not given by the District Magistrate, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. The Court need not dwell into this aspect in great detail because law on this issue is well settled now. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State does - 2 - not controvert the fact. It only states that the District Magistrate did not agree with the finding given by the enquiry officer. As if it was open to the disciplinary authority to pass an order of punishment without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the question of disagreement and the material for such disagreement. Annexure-2 is, thus, quashed as being illegal. This writ application is allowed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)