IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.618 of 2007 BIJAY KUMAR PASWAN, S/o Sri Dasrath Paswan, Resident of Linepar, Mirjapur, P.S. Nawadah, District Nawadah, presently posted as Assistant Cashier cum Clerk at Central Bank of India, Lakhisarai Branch, P.S. Lakhisarai, Distt. Lakihsari … Appellant Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai 3. The Zonal Manager, Patna Zone, Central Bank of India, Patna 4. The Regional Manager, Gaya Region, Central Bank of India, Gaya 5. The Branch Manager, Nawadah Branch, Central Bank of India, Nawadah 6. The Branch Manager, Ekangar Sarai Branch, Central Bank of India, Nalanda 7. The Branch Manager, Lakhisarai Branch, Central Bank of India, Lakhisarai … Respondents ----------- 4. 3.12.2008 Petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 24.5.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 9028/2004 dismissing the writ application has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner-appellant is aggrieved with the penalty of lowering of pay scale by two steps inflicted by the disciplinary authority. The said order of the disciplinary authority was affirmed in appeal. Writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the aforesaid writ application, inter alia, contending that the 2 finding of the enquiry officer is erroneous. It was pointed out that the enquiry officer ought to have exonerated the petitioner taking into account the vigilance report and the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority on the same ground ought to have disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and exonerated the writ petitioner. This submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Mr.Jha, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the disciplinary authority has agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but while doing so it has not assigned detailed reason. Same infirmity has been pointed out in the order of the appellate authority. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Jha. It is not in dispute that that the Enquiry Officer had held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and the disciplinary authority had agreed with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. The appellate authority had concurred with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. In such 3 circumstance, we are of the opinion that no detail reason was required to be given either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/