IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2396 of 2009 Prabhakar Prasad Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. P. N. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. For the State of Bihar:- Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. ------------- 3. 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner while holding the post of District Accounts Officer at Saran was placed under suspension on 31.1.2005 and Jehanabad Town P.S. Case No. 424 of 2004 had also been instituted against him. Charges were framed on 18.1.2007 under four heads. It related to serious financial issues. The enquiry report was submitted on 30.7.2007. It stated that charge no. 1 was in fact not a charge but a statement of fact and the petitioner was exonerated of the other three charges. A second show cause notice is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on 14.8.2007 to which he is stated to have replied on 5.9.2007 whereafter the final punishment was passed on 26.9.2008 withholding two increments with cumulative effect and debarring to be considered for promotion for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the enquiry report was one of exoneration, the 2 disciplinary authority was well within his jurisdiction to differ with the same while issuing a second show cause notice. But in that event the disciplinary authority was required to set out the grounds for the difference of opinion along with tentative material in support thereof to enable the petitioner to understand the thinking of the disciplinary authority why the report of exoneration was not acceptable. It was only thereafter that the petitioner could submit any reply to the show cause notice to persuade the disciplinary authority to give him the benefit of the exoneration. Unless and until this procedure was followed, well established by judicial precedent giving a second show cause notice was an empty formality, vitiating the punishment. Counsel for the State finds it difficult to demonstrate from the notice dated 14.8.2007 that it was a second show cause notice for a difference of opinion from the enquiry report of exoneration setting out the grounds for the difference of opinion along with the tentative materials in support thereof to enable the petitioner to submit his reply. The reply by the petitioner on 5.9.2007 was therefore in like manner as the notice was and answered only to that extent. There was no occasion for the petitioner to 3 answer anything beyond that mentioned in the defective notice. The order dated 26.9.2008 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report and then conclude the departmental proceedings in the aforesaid manner within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)