IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3454 of 2003 JAI KANT PURBEY . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- 8. 24.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Of the various issues raised in the writ application the only relief pressed for is with regard to grant of salary for the period 7.5.1998 to 20.11.1998. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on three charges. One of them pertained to absence for the aforesaid period. On conclusion of the enquiry the punishment of censure was to be entered in the character roll for the year 1998-99 and that no salary for the period of unauthorized absence was to be paid. Assailing the denial of salary it is submitted that in reply to the charge the petitioner had submitted his explanation for the absence and requested for adjustment of the same against his earned leave. Either his explanation was to be accepted or rejected. If it was to be rejected, the petitioner was required to be given an opportunity to meet the same by a second show cause notice as the findings were arrived at in a departmental enquiry. It is submitted that no copy of the enquiry report much less second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before imposition of punishment. Counsel for the State submits that the enquiry report dated 21.9.2010 has been enclosed as Annexure ‘C’ to the counter affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that it is illegible substantially. If the punishment imposed was minor in nature, this Court may not have upheld the objection of absence of any second show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report if punishment was based on the reply furnished without reference to any finding in the departmental enquiry. But when the order of punishment is based on the findings in the enquiry without reference to the defence laid out by the petitioner during departmental enquiry this Court finds it difficult to sustain the order dated 30.1.2002 as the same is held to be in violation of procedures for holding a departmental enquiry. The order of punishment dated 30.1.2002 is quashed. If the respondents wish to proceed further in the matter from the stage of submission of the enquiry report they shall be obliged to furnish a fresh legible copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. This period shall not include such time for which the petitioner may be alleged to evade notice. Keeping in mind the punishment, only to the extent of unauthorized absence is concerned, if notice in the aforesaid manner is not served upon the petitioner due to the fault of the respondents alone the petitioner is held entitled to adjustment of that period against his earned leave. The writ application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)