IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.211 of 2011 Bhim Sen Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- Counsel for the petitioner: M/s. Dinu Kumar & Shiv Kr. Prabhakar. Counsel for the respondents: M/s. Rishi Raj Sinha, GP-19, Rajeev Shekhar and Rakesh Kumar. ______ 04. 26.7.2011 Annexure-1 is the order by virtue of which the benefit of ACP granted to the petitioner stood withdrawn. Petitioner is in service on the post of a Boring Clerk under Minor Irrigation Department. Annexure-4 is the notification based on which large number of persons working in the department along with the petitioner were given benefit of ACP. No doubt this notification specially paragraph 3 talks in terms of withdrawing such a benefit in the event of any infirmity being found in the said grant, but since Annexure-4 was issued way back on 4.12.2004 and Annexure-1 has been issued on 6.8.2010 i.e. almost after six years, then petitioner seems to be correct in saying that he ought to have been given opportunity to explain by giving him a notice or show cause in this regard. Since this is the limited submission now after other submissions have been given a goby, the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority i.e. Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, who will issue a show cause to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner pass appropriate order within a reasonable time- 2 frame. Till such order is passed, Annexure-1 and 2 would not be enforced against the petitioner. Writ is disposed of with the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)