IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15675 of 2009 1. BINOD KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, R/O AT BIRAT COMPLEX BORING ROAD, P.S AND P.O- S..K.PURI, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ARGICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRUCLUTRE, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Two charges were initially framed against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding. Charge no. 1 related to his allegedly being caught red handed accepting illegal gratification leading to institution of Vigilance Case No. 21/96. Charge no. 2 related to harassment of the person from whom illegal gratification had been demanded. During the pendency of the proceedings on 27.3.2006 an additional charge was framed with regard to his absence from the headquarter during the period of suspension. A copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner on his request after a second show cause notice was issued to him for the proposed punishment. It transpires from the enquiry report that 2 the enquiry officer failed to give any finding on the first two charges in view of the pendency of the Vigilance case. The petitioner was exonerated of the third charge. After the petitioner submitted his reply, the final order of punishment dismissing him from service has been issued on 3.12.2008 as communicated to him by order dated 9.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in so far as the first two charges are concerned, in absence of any finding being given by the enquiry officer, the question of difference of opinion does not arise. Secondly, with regard to charge no. 3, the second show cause notice was not in accordance with law as it did not set out the grounds for reasons of difference of opinion with the enquiry officer along with the materials in support of such difference of opinion. Learned counsel for the State urged that the registration of a Vigilance case leading to a criminal prosecution for a particular act is one aspect of the matter and a departmental proceeding for reason of such Vigilance case is another aspect of the matter pertaining to discipline in service. Justifiably before there can be a difference of opinion, there has to be a finding given by the 3 enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has not given any finding on charge nos. 1 and 2. The disciplinary aspect with regard to a government servant against whom there are penal allegation are two distinct issue. The order of punishment dated 3.12.2008 and 9.7.2009 in so far as it indicts the petitioner with regard to charge nos. 1 and 2 is therefore not sustainable. Likewise, the impugned order is also not sustainable with regard to charge no. 3 on the ground that the second show cause notice for the difference of opinion with the report of exoneration is not in consonance with law as it does not set out reasons for the difference of opinion and materials in support thereof. The orders of punishment dated 3.12.2008 and 9.7.2009 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the enquiry officer to conclude the departmental proceedings in accordance with law in so far as charge nos. 1 and 2 are concerned whereafter the disciplinary authority shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The disciplinary authority shall also be at liberty in that event to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the report of exoneration in so far as 4 charge no. 3 is concerned. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all objections on facts and law before the enquiry officer with regard to charge nos. 1 and 2. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)