IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3395 of 2008 VINOD KUMAR, SON OF LATE DOMAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AKAL BIGHA, P.S. BELAGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. P.N. Pathak, Advocate For the State :- A.A.G. 5 ----------- 2 29.4.2011 The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department. The petitioner challenges the order contained in Annexure-1 which is the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority. By the said order dated 15.10.2007, the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and he has been deprived from the salary for the period of suspension other than the subsistence allowance. The petitioner also challenges the second show-cause which had been issued to the petitioner on the ground that the 2 disciplinary authority while differing with the enquiry officer has not given any reasons for differing with the enquiry report which exonerated the petitioner. It is submitted that the order dated 26.6.2007 has in fact pre-judged the issue as the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved by using the word “izekf.kr gksrk gSA” The charges and the language of the second show-cause as well as Annexure-1 is virtually identical to the show-cause and order of punishment issued in CWJC No. 2993 of 2008 in the case of Vashishth Narain Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The orders contained in Annexures 1 and 7 are thus, quashed with a direction to issue a fresh second show-cause notice to the petitioner, stating reasons for prima facie differing with the order of the Enquiry Officer and after giving him an opportunity, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The reasons for quashing the aforesaid two annexures are discussed in detail in CWJC No. 2993 of 2008 and as such this Court is not repeating itself by recording the 3 reasons again. In fact both the matters were heard together and thus the order passed in the case of Vashishth Narain Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors would cover the present case as well. This writ application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in CWJC No. 2993 of 2008. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)