IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3300 of 2003 LALAN KUMAR SINHA, aged about 46 years, son of late Suresh Prasad, resident of village Bariarpur, P.S. Shakra (Dholi), District Muzaffapur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Health Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. Additional Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Dy. Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 5. The State Drug Controller, Bihar, Patna 6. Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 5. 27.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner assails the order of punishment dated 12.7.2001 dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that not only punishment of dismissal from service on the basis of a charge relating to unauthorized absence of duty for the period 7.12.1998 to 25.11.1999 is exorbitant and in fact shocking to the conscience but even otherwise the impugned order suffers from procedural infirmity, 2 inasmuch as when the Enquiry Officer had not held the petitioner guilty and the disciplinary authority had deferred from such enquiry report by giving his own reasons, the minimum that was required to be followed by way of compliance of the principles of natural justice was that the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice in respect of findings relating to difference of opinion ought to have been considered in the light of the defence taken by the petitioner. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that once this fact was clearly admitted that the petitioner was absent from duty without sanction of leave, the view taken by the respondents only to support the same from the documents cannot be said to be really a difference of opinion, rather the effort of the Enquiry Officer being half-hearted, the Disciplinary Authority had only tried to cover up the same by issuing the show cause notice as with regard to the proposed action for inflicting punishment of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court if the 3 disciplinary authority had given his own reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of a charge which were not earlier recorded by the Enquiry Officer, even such additional reasons would be touching the fringe of difference of opinion. Thus, when the disciplinary authority had given his own reasons for holding the petitioner guilty in support of the charge of absence from duty without sanctioned leave and/or permission and the petitioner had taken a defence with regard to not only filing of leave application but also certain other evidence, approved in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it was all the more necessary for the disciplinary authority to deal with such defence and pass a reasoned order. That would be the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice, particularly in quasi judicial proceeding. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the constitution bench Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 1984. That being so, when no reason at all has been given in the impugned while 4 considering and rejecting the defence of the petitioner, this Court must hold that there is a clear procedural infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the impugned order is quashed with a direction to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. While doing so, the authority will be well advised to also take into account the observations made by the Apex Court with regard to quantum of punishment in the matter of unauthorized absence as was held in the case of Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association & anor., reported in (2007)4 SCC 669. To this Court it appears that if there is only a charge of the petitioner remaining absent for a period of little over one year, his altogether removal from service by way of dismissal taking away his entire service career, would be too harsh and therefore, the respondents should also reconsider their decision on the quantum of punishment. It is also made clear that if the Respondents 5 choose to inflict any lesser punishment the petitioner having not worked in the period of 12.7.2001 onwards will be entitled 50% of his last salary till the date of his reinstatement. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/