IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14937 of 2004 1. BABAN RAI S/o Late Deep Narain Rai resident of Village-Dharampur, P.O.-Naya Mohamadpur, P.S.- Koelwar, Dist-Bhojpur (Arra) -----------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Dept. Govt. of Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Water Development Dept. Govt. of Bihar, District._ Jamui ----------------Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State:- G.A.-5 ----------- 4. 11.08.2010 Counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 403 of 2005 which was the case of Brahmdew Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The order is dated 12th of March, 2008. Submission of the counsel is that the present petitioner and Brahmdew Prasad were proceeded together and different kinds of order of punishment has come to be passed. Against the order of punishment imposed on Brahmdew Prasad he moved the High Court in the said writ application and infirmities in the proceeding conducted against the petitioner and Brahmdew Prasad came to be pointed out and accepted by the Court in its detailed order dated 12th March, 2008. It is the contention of the counsel that the case of the present petitioner should also be considered in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Brahmdew Prasad 2 (supra). Learned counsel for the State was handed over a copy of the decision for satisfying himself on the stand taken by the petitioner on the issue. After having perused the order, he submits that the present writ application can also be disposed of with similar direction. The writ application is disposed of with the following observation:- “Thus it is apparent that the proceeding was concluded and order of punishment of petitioner was issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order (Annexure-1) is bad in law and is fit to be quashed. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed. Petitioner, in this case has confined his challenge to the order of punishment (Annexure-1). Hence, while quashing the impugned order of punishment (Annexure-1), liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh, if it so decides, from the stage of submission of inquiry report and pass appropriate orders in strict compliance of principles of natural justice and in accordance with law.” This writ application is allowed in similar terms based on the observation and direction of the case of Brahmdew Prasad. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)