IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10192 of 2010 Yogendra Prasad, son of Late Bideshi Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Maurya Nagar, Kako Road, Jahanabad, P.s. Jahanabad, in the District/Town of jahanabad. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport, government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Transport Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Transport Officer, Purnia. 5. The District Transport Officer, Nawada. 6. The Tax Fixation Officer, Revenue Collection Centre, Check Post, Rajauli, in the district of Nawada. ----------- 2 04.05.2011 By Annexue-1, petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure and withholding of his salary of the suspension period except the amount paid by way of subsistence allowance. The order has been passed by the Transport Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that under Rule 24 of the 2005. Rules, petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Government by way of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that where violation of Principles of Natural Justice is apparent, the alternative remedy cannot be a bar in maintaining a writ application in this Court under Article 226. In this connection he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamlawati Devi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.[ 2008 (1) PLJR 17] . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this case the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and the second show cause notice was also not served upon him. 2 The case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner was in respect of cancellation of appointment of an Anganbari Sevika. This Court found that the order was an absolutely non-speaking order. Hence, the same was in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since no reason at all was recorded in the order, the petitioner of the writ application could not effectively maintain her appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said order challenging the findings of the original authority, since those findings itself were not available at all in the order. In the circumstances, this Court found that the availability of alternative remedy cannot be considered as bar in exercise of powers of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case the impugned order of punishment as contained in annexure-1 also show that reasons have been assigned therein for passing the order of punishment. The Disciplinary Authority has found that the petitioner, in fact, had not joined on transferred post and had kept corresponding with the Department in respect of his payment of salary etc. etc. The petitioner, therefore, is in a position to challenge the said findings of the Disciplinary Authority in an appeal, which will be more effective forum to decide the issue with regard to (service enquiry report and second show cause notice and) the actual findings of the enquiry officer which can be better examined by the Appellate Authority by calling the original records and looking to the same in which process the Appellate Authority can also easily verify 3 with regard to issue of second show cause with copy of inquiry report to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer his appeal against the punishment order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)