IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.634 of 2009 Manrup Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 28.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 29.7.2004 by the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department at Dehri. It states that the time bound promotions granted to the petitioner were contrary to the Finance Department letter no. 3683 dated 1`7.5.2003 and the consequential departmental order in pursuance thereof vide no. 3716 dated 9.6.2003. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same. Final orders have been passed on 10.1.2006 cancelling the time bound promotions and shifting the dates as also ordering recovery. The writ petition encloses an order dated 6.5.2006 that a bench of this Court in CWJC no. 1009 of 2005 had struck down the Finance Department Circular dated 17.5.2003. It is therefore apparent that the show cause notice was based on a specified ground which was no more available after it was struck down by the Court. The counter affidavit affirmed by one Sri Dharni Dhar Prasad, who does not disclose his official status, at paragraph 18 states that the stricking down of the Finance Department circular dated 17.5.2003 was inconsequential as the order can still be justified in light of the departmental letter no. 1503 dated 27.3.1987. The action is therefore justified in law. If the show cause notice was based on a specified ground with regard to a specified circular and the reply furnished, the determination had to be done on basis of the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. It is not open to the respondents to urge one ground in the show 2 cause notice and then on challenge laid before the Court finding that ground to be unsustainable invoke a fresh ground not mentioned in the show cause notice. This law of Service Jurisprudence stands very well settled and needs no further discussion. Such order beyond the show cause notice becomes arbitrary and illegal as the delinquent had no opportunity to meet the same. The writ petition specifically pleads the fact of the Finance Department Circular dated 17.5.2003 having been set at naught by the Court. The deponent has admitted that ground yet seeks to contest the matter. The manner in which the deponent to the counter affidavit seeks to contest the matter notwithstanding its being indefensible in law, disturbs the Court. Had he been a little more cautious in reading the writ petition along with its annexures perhaps casualness of approach on his part and a stand contrary to the law may have been avoided and could have saved the unnecessary litigation. The Court directs the Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department to examine the indefensible stand taken by the deponent before this Court contrary to the State Litigation Policy more particularly with regard to indefensible causes and take appropriate administrative action. The very substratum having admittedly been knocked down by annulment of the circular dated 17.5.2003 by judicial pronouncement the show cause notice itself becomes illegal. Any final order passed on the same is therefore of no significance. The Court formally declares the impugned order dated 10.1.2006 to be illegal. It is accordingly quashed. Any recovery made in pursuance thereof is directed to be refunded to the petitioner in 3 accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)