IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18375 of 2009 1. Chandeshwar Prasad S/O Late Tulsi Mahto R/O Vill. & P.O.- Nanand, P.S.- Silao, Distt.- Nalanda (Presently Posted As An Assistant In The Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Government Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Principal Secretary Excise & Prohibition Deptt., Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 6. The Secretary Urban Development Department, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 7. The Secretary Panchaiti Raj Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 8. The Conducting Officer - Cum - Deputy Secretary Tourism Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna ----------- 3. 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally when he was exonerated of certain charges and indicted for the others. This led to a second show cause notice with final orders of punishment as modified in review by the respondents in their statutory powers by order dated 29.10.2009. The petitioner questioned the punishment before this Court on the ground that no second show cause notice was issued for a difference of opinion with regard to the charges of which he was 2 exonerated before the respondents proceeded for imposition of punishment. The second show cause notice issued did not specify that it was based on proved charges only. The writ petition was allowed and the matter remanded to proceed afresh from the stage of the enquiry report. In L.P.A. No. 1456 of 2010, the respondents/appellants contended that the second show cause notice was given on proved charges only and not on those exonerated. That has led to a fresh hearing of the present writ application. The only question for consideration now is if the five charges were interlinked or severable. If the charges are interlinked, no fresh conclusion is possible except to hold that the punishment is not sustainable for the reasons already discussed in the earlier order. But if the proved and exonerated charges are severable applying the doctrine of severance and the final order of punishment can still be upheld on proved charges, the punishment may not require any interference. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that the charges are inextricably linked, meaning thereby that one cannot exist without the other. If the charges are severable and the second 3 show cause notice was given only on proved charges, there can be no infirmity in the punishment. The Court on perusal of the charges finds that they cannot be held to be interconnected for holding that one cannot exist without the other. The charges are severable. Once the Court has arrived at this conclusion and no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings on proved charges has been pointed out, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the order of punishment. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)