IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14102 of 2009 1. KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA S/O SRI JAGESHWAR SHARMA R/O KUSAR, P.S- KARPI, DISTT- ARWAL, PRESENTLY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.E.D., H.Q. PATNA BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY P.H.E.D., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE ADD. SECRETARY P.H.E.D., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASRAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. DY. SECRETARY P.H.E.D., GOVT.OF BIHAR, BISHWASARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 5. CHIEF ENGINEER (URBAN) P.H.E.D., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 2. 6.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 2.3.2009 censuring him for certain acts during the period 1999-2000 and withholding one increment with cumulative effect as punishment. It is submitted that in pursuance of a departmental enquiry a report of exoneration was submitted. A second show cause notice came to be issued on 18.4.2008 on a difference of opinion with the enquiry officer. The show cause notice did not set out the ground for difference of opinion notwithstanding which the petitioner with that handicap submitted his reply when the final order of punishment was passed Learned counsel for the State submitted that a show cause notice for a difference of opinion with the enquiry report was duly given and therefore no interference is called for. The law mandates that in a case where the disciplinary 2 authority proposes to differ with the enquiry report of exoneration, he is required to set out the grounds on which the difference of opinion is founded, reasons for the difference of opinion and the materials in support for the reasons. This is considered necessary to enable him to make the delinquent aware of and to satisfy the authorities on these grounds upon which he is to be deprived of the benefit of the enquiry report of exoneration. The present second show cause notice clearly does not fulfill the legal requirement. It confronts the petitioner with a final decision. This Court is satisfied that this serious procedural irregularity in the decision making process vitiates the impugned punishment. The order of punishment dated 2.3.2009 is accordingly set aside. In normal circumstances, the matter would have been required to be remanded to the authorities. The Additional Secretary in his note dated 10.3.2008 notices that no financial loss had accrued to the Government and that the matter was one of the procedural irregularities only. This Court does not consider it necessary to give remand of the matter. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)