IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7329 of 2010 Umesh Prasad Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16..11.2006 visiting him with the punishment of ‘censure’ for the year 1990-1991, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 17,388/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a departmental proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated. A second show cause notice was given after which the order of punishment was passed on 5.6.2003. He preferred an appeal which also came to be rejected. Ultimately in C.W.J.C. No. 7969 of 2004 noticing that no proper second show cause notice in accordance with law was given for differing with the enquiry report, spelling out the reasons for difference of opinion, this court set aside the punishment and remitted the matter. The respondents have proceeded to pass a fresh order without complying with the order of the court. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submitted that the respondents on 7.12.2005 gave him a second show cause notice for a difference of opinion. The Court on the previous occasion had required the respondents to file further affidavit bringing on record the alleged letter dated 7.12.2005. No such affidavit has been filed. The court is not inclined to adjourn the matter and proceeds on 2 the basis of the recitals contained in the order dated 16.11.2006. The impugned order refers to a second show cause notice issued on 7.12.2005 which has not been brought on record by the respondents. The compliance of the order of the court, therefore, has to be culled out from the impugned order. Paragraph 5 of the impugned order makes it apparent that the respondents never issued a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner spelling out the grounds and reasons on which a difference of opinion with the enquiry report was proposed to be founded. Unless the petitioner was first given the reasons for difference of opinion there was no occasion for him to appreciate the mind of the disciplinary authority to answer any enquiry. Paragraph 5 of the impugned order in no uncertain terms states that if the petitioner had anything further to say in the matter he may do so. That was not the direction of the court. The order of punishment dated 16.11.2006 is therefore, not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount under the second and third head of the punishment within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application is allowed. M.Rahman (Navin Sinha, J)