IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12572 of 2006 SHEO JANMA SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPT.LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK & ORS ----------- 4/ 26/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank. The petitioner has been proceeded departmentally on 4 charges. Subsequently 5 supplementary charges were framed against him. He was held not guilty on the original 4 charges, but on the 5 supplementary charges he has been found partially guilty. This led to a second show cause notice on 1.11.1999. The show cause notice did not contain any details for the reasons of difference of opinion with the enquiry report of exoneration on the 4 charges. Then followed the order of punishment dated 25.7.2001, as modified by order dated 9.6.2003. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1743/05. On 18.4.2006 this Court observed that without serving reasons for difference of opinion in the findings of exoneration the order of punishment passed was not sustainable. This Court then observed that the petitioner had already filed a representation in which these aspects of the matter should be appropriately considered. The writ application was disposed accordingly. - 2 - This Court holds that the fact that the petitioner may have filed any representation, or that this Court may have directed the authorities to consider the representation, does not detract from the duty of the respondents themselves to first serve a show cause notice to the petitioner briefly indicating the reasons why they proposed to differ with the findings of exoneration by the enquiry officer and the materials in support of such difference. The petitioner is entitled to be given an opportunity to represent against the same and only whereafter upon consideration of the reasons for difference of opinion, the reply of the petitioner, a brief discussion by the disciplinary authorities for the reasons of his conclusion an order of punishment based on a difference of opinion could have been passed. When this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation, this Court did not grant the liberty to the respondents to violate this procedure for conduct of a departmental enquiry and which procedure is now considered a basic ingredient of the principles of natural justice. In absence of any show cause notice for difference of opinion with the report of exoneration, it is difficult to sustain the order of punishment dated 16.6.2006. It is accordingly quashed. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J )