IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7280 of 2005 Neelam Jha wife of Late Dr.Deochandra Jha & Ujjawal Jha and Kranti Prakash Jha son of Late Dr. Deochandra Jha, resident of village-Rudauli, P.S.- Bachhwara, District-Begusarai, at present residing at Mohalla-Shivpuri, P.S.-Srikrishnapuri, District Patna. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Secondary, Primary & Adult Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Administration-cum-Deputy Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary & Adult Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ------------------ 5. 28.6.2011 During pendency of this writ petition original petitioner Dr. Deochandra Jha died on 11.12.2008 leaving behind his wife and two sons namely, Neelam Jha Ujjawal Jha & Kranti Prakash Jha and I.A. petition vide I.A. No. 7476 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the his wife Neelam Jha for substitution of legal heirs in place of original writ petitioners and the same is allowed. Accordingly, name of Dr. Deochandra Jha is substituted by the name of his legal heirs/successor as mentioned in para-2 of the I.A. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment vide memo No. 61 dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure 12 of the writ petition) whereby and whereunder the government has passed an order by way of punishment for withholding 20% pension of the petitioner. The short fact is that two charge sheets were served on the original petitioner vide memo nos. 244 dated 27.3.2002 and 2 282 dated 5.4.2002 in which serious allegations were made against him. The writ petitioner in this petition has alleged that he was not giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. The inquiry officer did not issue any notice nor the petitioner was asked to participate in the inquiry and without following the procedure of the departmental enquiry, he was served the show cause notice when the petitioner made an application that he was not given any enquiry report and he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry report was served on the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure-10 and Annexure-11 to the writ petition explained his defence. The petitioner has taken several ground of defence but the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment under Section 43 (b) of Bihar Pension did not discuss any of the defence taken by the petitioner and passed the cryptic order. It was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment ought to have discussed the defence taken by the petitioner. The authority rejected the explanation the petitioner without assigning any reason for passing the order. It has been decided by the different judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the authority concerned must assign the reason before passing the final order but it has not been done in the present case. 3 There is no such consideration in the impugned order and in view of fact that no reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary authority, this Court hereby quash the order of punishment i.e. Annexure-12 of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Mkc/ ( Shivaji Pandey, J.)