IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4371 of 2003 TILAKDEO SHUKLA, Son of Sudeshwar Shukla, resident of Muhalla Sukapura, P.S. Ara Mofassil, District Ara (Bhojpur), Bihar, at present posted as permanent clerk in District Sub. Registrar office, Buxar. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.The Secretary-Cum-Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3.District Registrar, Bhojpur, Ara. 4.Inspector of Registration Offices, Patna Division, Patna. ------------ 4 31/7/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order of punishment dated 11.12.2002 as contained in Annexure-1. From reading of the impugned order it is clear that such order has been passed after differing with the findings of the enquiry report wherein the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner by not holding him guilty in respect of the charges framed against him. It is the case of the petitioner and in fact gets supported from the impugned order itself that after the enquiry officer had given favourable finding in favour of the petitioner, the authorities had never communicated any reasons by way of difference of opinion and in fact had straight way proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty by passing the impugned order inflicting certain punishment on punishment. Such recourse however is not permissible as has been held by the Apex Court in number of cases including one in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Bihari 2 Mishra, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84. That being so, this Court must hold that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law and is accordingly quashed. The disciplinary authority now shall proceed from the stage of submission of enquiry report and therefore if he would find necessary to continue with the proceedings, he must give fresh show cause notice containing reasons for differing with the opinion of the enquiry officer and once same is given to the petitioner and the petitioner would file his show cause reply, the same must be considered and be disposed of by a fresh final order. Since the matter had remained pending before this Court for more than last six years, such exercise must be completed by the disciplinary authority within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Any and every financial benefit to the petitioner would also abide by the fresh decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority. The application thus stands allowed only to the extent indicated above in the light of the aforementioned observations and directions. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)