IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5134 of 2010 1. TILAKDEO SHUKLA S/O SUDESHWAR SHUKLA R/O MOH SUKAPURA, P.S.ARA MUFASSIL, DISTT-ARA (BHOJPUR), BIHAR AT PRESENT POSTED AS PERMANENT CLERK IN DISTRICT SUB. REGISTRAR OFFICE , BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY -CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION BIHAR , NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR BHOJPUR, ARA 4. INSPECTOR OF REGISTRATION OFFICERS, PATNA DIVISION PATNA ----------- 2/ 16/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2009 affirming the earlier order of punishment dated 17.12.2009 in pursuance of a departmental proceeding. The punishment imposed was denial of further promotions, stoppage of five increments with non- cumulative effect and that during the period of suspension nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer submitted a report on 6.2.2001 of exoneration. The order of punishment followed on 17.12.2009 without any notice to show cause based on a difference of opinion indicating the tentative reasons for the same from the materials on record upon which the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion of exoneration. The petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No.4371/03 disposed - 2 - on 31.7.2009 holding the order of punishment unsustainable in its present form. The disciplinary authority was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of enquiry report. It is submitted that the same error has again been committed in the fresh order dated 23.11.2009. Learned counsel for the State finds it difficult to even prima facie satisfy the Court that the procedure as directed in the order dated 31.7.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.4371/03 has been followed. He therefore suggests that it may be set aside and the matter may be remanded again. The order dated 23.11.2009 states that in pursuance of the order of this Court the disciplinary authority had called upon the petitioner to submit his response to the opinion of the disciplinary authority differing with the enquiry officer. There is no recital in the order that any fresh show cause notice was served indicating the tentative reasons for a difference of opinion with the enquiry report based on the same materials. An administrative order shall be treated on the basis of the recitals contained in the order. In absence of any discussion or recital in the order that the respondents had served a second show cause notice in accordance with law the order dated 23.11.2009 is not sustainable. It - 3 - is accordingly quashed. The Court does not accede to the suggestion of the State Counsel to remand the issue again as matters like this cannot be an unending process. The State Officials have the benefit of legal advice easily available to them not only from the office of the Advocate General, but from a plethora of State Counsels. If the authorities insist on passing administrative orders, based on their perceived understanding of the law, refraining from taking proper legal advice, more so in compliance of the orders of the Court, to remand the matter shall only be giving an advantage to respondents for their own lapses. The Court declines to do so. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)