IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5542 of 2007 KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 4. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, IRRGATION DEPARTMENT 5. THEDEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, MECHANICAL DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 8. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION MECHANICAL DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 9. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3. 10.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was charge sheeted. Enquiry report came to be submitted. It was followed by a second show cause notice when punishment followed. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 14447 of 2001 challenging the order of punishment, in view of the nature of enquiry report. This Court by its judgment and order dated 9.3.2006 held that the petitioner was not given required notice by the disciplinary authority, if it proposed to take a different view to that of the Inquiring Officer; that no further enquiry was done as suggested by the Inquiring Officer. The petitioner, therefore, succeeded in showing prejudice in imposing of punishment on the basis of the findings which was different to that of the Inquiring Officer without giving due notice to him for such difference of opinion. The punishment was, therefore, set aside with directions to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in law from that stage within a period of six months. Then followed a show cause notice dated 28.9.2006. The 2 petitioner challenged the same before this Court in the present writ application. While the writ application remained pending, the Respondents have issued a revised second show cause notice to the petitioner on 10.7.2007. It is the stand of the Respondents therein that they have set out reasons for differences of opinion with that of the Inquiring Officer. The petitioner in response to the second show cause notice dated 10.7.2007 has already filed a detailed reply on 24.7.2007. In that view of the matter, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere at this stage on the plea that the second show cause notice dated 10.7.2007 did not set out the proposed punishment. That may be premature as the Respondents are yet to consider the reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. It is only after an appropriate decision is taken in response thereof that necessary consequential stage may arise. The Respondents are directed to take an expeditious decision on the cause shown by the petitioner and complete the departmental proceedings in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)