IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1105 of 2011 Rajendra Prasad S/o Late Ram Badan Singh R/o Mohalla-New Alkapuri, Road No. -17, P.S.-Gardanibagh, P.O.-Anisabad, District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, general Administration department, govt of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Science & Technology department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Departmental enquiry Commissioner, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (General Administration Department), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. For the Petitioner/s: Mr. MD. NADIM SERAJ For the Respondent/s: Mr. RAJESH KUMAR GP21 3 01.07.2011 The origin of the present case lies in certain action allegedly taken by the petitioner in the year 1986. Allegation had been made that the petitioner along with some other Government Officials of Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, indulged in a criminal act of appointing certain persons on Class-III and IV posts illegally. Different roles were assigned to different persons but all of them were clubbed together to be investigated by the C.B.I as the Government of Bihar decided to refer the matter to the C.B.I. C.B.I carried out a prolonged and detailed investigation but did not find clenching evidence on which the petitioner could be pinned down in a criminal Court. They decided to drop the criminal case but recommended holding of a departmental enquiry against the 2 petitioner. At the relevant time petitioner was holding the post of an assistant in the Department. Obviously, since time cannot stand still petitioner moved on in life and got promotions. At the time when the order of punishment came to visit him petitioner was holding the post of under Secretary. In the enquiry which was conducted against him against the insinuation or allegation, the enquiry Officer did not find culpability of the petitioner to the charge. Some superfluous kind of evidence did come that petitioner had received some of those appointments letters even though he was not in charge of the said section and that it created doubt about his complecity. The court can only say that the doubt persist but no further material came to turn the doubt into acts of culpability. The Enquiry Officer therefore exonerated the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings because according to the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, such evidence was good enough to infer the participation of the petitioner in the illegal act. Annexure-10 dated 5th of June 2010 is the so called notice of disagreement which has been brought on record with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, Annexure-10 therefore becomes the bone of contentions in the sense that the order of punishment contained in annexure-9 will have to be tested on the validity of the so called notice of dissent given by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner 3 submits that the law on this issue has been well settled right from the case of Kunj Bihari Mishra vs. Punjab National Bank down the line that a notice of disagreement must indicate the reason for such disagreement and it must also record the proposed punishment against which petitioner has to be given opportunity. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the case reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 (Kunj Behari Mishra vs. Punjab National Bank),(1999) 7 SCC 739 (Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharastra),A.I.R 2001 SC 2398 (S.B.I and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla ) as well as the classical case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra V. Union of India reported in A.I.R 1958 SC 36. The Court has been taken through Annexure-10 which is supposed to be notice of disagreement. If the parameters or the principles which has been laid down in the decisions are applied to the present set of facts and circumstances of this case then the Court has no hesitation in recording that Annexure-10 does not fulfill the requirement which the Courts have laid down in such matters. Merely, saying that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is not binding on the disciplinary authority is not good enough in the matter. It is based on this notice that the punishment of reversion of the petitioner from the post of under Secretary to the post of Clerk on the basic grade have been passed. Since there is no dispute on these foundational facts the challenge to annexure-9 has to succeed and the order will have to go. . 4 The stand of the State is that the petitioner had responded to Annexure-10, which was the notice given to him. It is only after his explanation that the order of punishment has been passed. On this the Court can observe that response of the petitioner is not issue it is the content and the form in which Annexure-10 the notice of disagreement has been given in this case, which is the bone of contention. Writ application is allowed. Annexure-9 is quashed in the above stated circumstances. Prakash ( Ajay kumar Tripathi, J.)