IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.850 of 2010 JAYANT KUMAR, 54 years old, son of Late Hazari Das, village Haluan, P.S Masaurhi, District Patna, at present posted as District Fishries Officer-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishries Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Director, Fisheries, Uttari Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh, Jharkand ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, G.A. 7 3 10.1.2011 Petitioner has challenged the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-1, imposing major punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and denying him full salary of the suspension period. When the case was taken up on 1.7.2008 this Court specifically noticed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was passed without issue of second show cause notice and without furnishing a copy of inquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer to the disciplinary authority. In view of the said stand, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions and to file counter affidavit, for which four weeks time was allowed. Accordingly, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents today. However, learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that there is nothing in the counter affidavit to controvert the said issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case. In that view of the matter it stands admitted by the 2 respondents that before passing of the punishment order the disciplinary authority had not issued any second show cause notice to the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report to enable the petitioner to file his reply to the same meeting the findings of the enquiry officer. Apparently the action of the respondents is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The order as contained in Annexure-1 is therefore quashed. The writ application is allowed. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)