IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12091 of 2003 ISHWAR CHANDRA VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6/ 01/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding. It is not in controversy that he came to be exonerated by the enquiry report dated 30.11.2000. A second show cause notice on the difference of opinion was given to him on 7.72003. He replied to the same when final orders of punishment stopping 15% of pension consequent to his superannuation on 30.4.2002 came to be passed on 6.9.2003 and that no salary was payable for the period of suspension. This Court while considering an order of punishment based on a difference of opinion with an enquiry report of exoneration is primarily concerned with the decision making process and fairness in the same. Before a delinquent can be deprived of the benefit of a report of exoneration, the respondents who have full authority to do so, are required to state briefly in the second show cause notice what the charge was, what the finding of the enquiry officer was 2 and how on basis of the materials before the enquiry officer itself the department proposed to arrive at a different conclusion. This has been considered necessary to show transparency in the application of mind by the disciplinary authority while simultaneously enabling the delinquent to know the exact case that he has to meet to enable him to retain the benefit of exoneration. In the present case, while the second show cause notice states the ground on which the Department proposed to differ with the enquiry report, it does not discuss the findings of the enquiry officer upon the same, much less any discussion of the materials already on record upon which the respondents propose to indict the petitioner. What was the petitioner required to reply to when he did not know what was passing the mind of the respondents. The order of punishment dated 6.9.2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage that the enquiry report came to be submitted and the proceedings to be completed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the disciplinary authority ? If for non-cooperation, whether attributable 3 to the petitioner or otherwise, the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte also by recording his findings of the reasons for the need to proceed ex parte. In this manner, the proceeding is directed to be concluded within a period of four months failing which the respondents shall be precluded from proceeding further with the matter in any manner when the order of punishment shall stand set aside with all consequential benefits. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)