IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2908 of 2007 DINESH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 31.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed this Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to take notice of the facts except to the extent necessary. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for certain lapses while he was on duty at Arrah in the district of Bhojpur. An enquiry report came to be submitted to his prejudice when a second show cause notice was issued to him by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice. It appears that the petitioner was in the meantime transferred from Bhojpur to Supaul. The impugned order of punishment dated 22.9.2003 purportedly by the disciplinary authority then came to be passed by the Superintendent of Police, Supaul. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly assailed this order to submit that the reply to the second show cause notice was submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah as the disciplinary authority. As per the impugned order, consideration on the same has been done by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur who arrived at the conclusion to reject the same and communicated it to the Superintendent of Police, Supaul, who then relying upon the communication received from the Superintendent of Police Bhojpur at Arrah passed the present order of punishment which does not reflect any material from the show cause filed by the petitioner. The appeal against the order of punishment has then been rejected. The respondents appear to have adopted a peculiar procedure. If the second show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Police Bhojpur at Arrah and he had considered the reply to the same the final order was to be passed by him and not by any other person. It is virtually as if hearing has been done by one and the final order has been passed by another. This is not permissible in the law. For that apparent reason the order of the disciplinary authority reflects no consideration by application of mind to the reply to the second show cause notice. On that short ground along the impugned order dated 22.9.2003 is set aside. Consequently the appellate order dated 5.3.2006 automatically collapses and is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the Superintendent of Police Bhojpur at Arrah to pass fresh order in pursuance to the reply to the show cause already submitted by the petitioner, 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)