IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16739 of 2009 1. Awadh Kishore Prasad S/O Late Ishwari Prasad Rajak R/O Vill & P.O. Katahra, P.S. Sultanganj, Distt- Bhagalpur, At Present Working & Posted As D.C.L.R., Banka Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary Bihar At Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Peronnal &Administrative Developement Department Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat , Patna 3. The Joint Secretary , Personnel &Administrative Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat , Patna 4. The Under Secretary, Personnal &Administrativr Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat , Patna 5. The D.M. Banka ----------- 3. 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Though the writ petition filed on 1.12.2009 and despite grant of further opportunity, fresh adjournment was sought on behalf of the State to file counter affidavit. Since the writ petition can be disposed off on a pure question of law, the Court does not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter for that purpose. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.2008 visiting him with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with non cumulative effect, minor in nature affecting his future chances for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the foundation of the punishment is a recommendation of the Lokayukt. There has been no independent application of mind by the department 2 with an opportunity to defend. There has been abdication of power to the recommendation of the Lokayukt. The procedure prescribed under Rule 19 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 has not been followed. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner does not deny that he was given a hearing by the Lokayukt. The impugned order does not act simplicitor on the recommendation without application of mind. The recital is specific that the department had applied its mind to the materials and facts on record in the background of the order of the Lokayukt. Natural justice cannot put in a straight jacket formula. What natural justice meant in the facts of a case shall depend on the facts of each case. In a minor punishment all that is required is the giving of a show cause notice and consideration of the defence. No elaborate enquires are needed. If the impugned order had been passed without any show cause notice or if the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to place his stand before the Lokayukt, matters may have been entirely different. The petitioner cannot deny that he has been given an audience by the Lokayukt and his stand noticed in the order of the Lokayukt. To that extent the Court finds no error in the order dated 1.7.2008. 3 But counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that if a procedure is prescribed in Rule 19 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 for the manner in which an order of minor punishment is to be passed, the impugned order has to comply the same except upon pain of invalidation. Even if this Court were to hold that the impugned order displays independent application of mind from the materials on record to the recommendation of the Lokayukt nonetheless, the impugned order does not record any finding on such imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour as required in Rule 19(d). The impugned order therefore is not sustainable for that reason alone. If the impugned order did not recite such imputation of misconduct to the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority, no counter affidavit could have supplemented it. The order dated 1.7.2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, if so advised. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)