IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6330 of 2009 Rajendra Prasad . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 13.2.2009 visiting him with censure to be entered in his character roll and stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. A memo of three charges was served upon the petitioner on 6.4.2005. Charge no. 1 stated that contrary to departmental instructions he took the police force through an unmetalled road when they were prohibited from doing so. Charge no. 2 stated that he left behind seven constables and did not inform that they had been left behind in the fair. Charge no. 3 stated that after a land mine explosion he did not proceed to the place of occurrence immediately but went there only after the directions of his superior when as a Senior Officer he was required to present himself at the spot forthwith. The petitioner denied the charges. The Superintendent of Police was also examined and cross examined by the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his report exonerating the 2 petitioner of all the three charges. A second show cause notice followed duly replied by the petitioner when the order of punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the report of exoneration if the respondents proposed to differ with the same they were required to give him a second show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report. The notice was required to tentatively indicate the grounds for such difference of opinion along with the materials in support thereof to enable the petitioner to understand the mind of the disciplinary authority and suitably answer it. That the petitioner may have submitted a reply of sorts in his own interest even in absence of the aforesaid shall not obliterate the legal requirement. Differing with a report of exoneration to impose punishment was a serious matter when the nature of punishment may not be very relevant. Counsel for the State submits that the allegations were serious. The punishment in any event was minor. The procedures for a second show cause notice etc. had all been followed. Ultimately, it was submitted if there was a procedural irregularity, the punishment may be set aside and the matter remanded. 3 The law with regard to a departmental proceeding especially in a matter for difference of opinion between the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority stands well settled. Before the delinquent is deprived of the report of exoneration he is required to be told the grounds for the same. Unless the disciplinary authority discloses his mind by tentative indication of reasons and materials, the giving of a show cause notice and a reply filed to the same are but empty formalities. The nature of the punishment imposed is hardly relevant. In so far as the employee is concerned, considering his status, his morale, his social respectability, a punishment is a punishment. The Court has gone through the enquiry report also. It is more than apparent that the prosecution itself was not co-operating. The presenting officer was not appearing, documents were not being supplied, prosecution witnesses were not appearing. The second show cause notice dated 15.9.2008 is completely non speaking in nature. It simply recites the charges. It does not even briefly indicate the mind of the disciplinary authority for the reasons of the difference of opinion. If the petitioner had not replied to the same his predicament would have been worse and it is just possible that when he 4 challenged the same he may have been told that he took the risk of not submitting his reply. A reply of sorts therefore furnished by him does not improve the case of the respondents. The Court finds it difficult to appreciate the stand of the respondents. If the charges were serious the prosecution should have been more diligent in pursuing the matter. The punishment imposed is minor. Disciplining the police force is the primary duty of the respondents themselves on the administrative side. They cannot expect the Court to impose discipline in the uniformed service by dismissing the writ application. In view of the fact that the respondents themselves consider the allegations fit for a minor punishment, the Court is not persuaded to set aside the order of punishment and remand it. Had the punishment been major in nature undoubtedly the manner in which the Court may have proceeded would have been very different. The order of punishment dated 13.2.2009 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)