IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7729 of 2009 Indra Narayan Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 04/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a memo. of two charges framed for checking of vehicles without proper authorization and inadequate collection of revenue. An enquiry report followed on 12.6.2008 of exoneration. Differing with the same, the punishment of censure has been imposed by the impugned order dated 25.7.2008 to be entered in his character roll for the year 2007-2008. Though counsel for the parties have urged other issues, the Court does not consider it necessary to go into the same for the reasons discussed hereinafter. The procedures for a minor punishment and a major punishment are entirely different. The former mandates a show cause notice, consideration of the reply followed by the final order. Conversely, a major punishment postulates the holding of a regular departmental proceeding by service of a memo. of charges, proving the charges during the departmental proceeding by the presenting officer before the enquiry officer by leading evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The delinquent 2 then rebuts the charges and the allegations. The enquiry officer then applies his mind to the allegations, the nature of evidence, and the defence to arrive at his independent conclusion. It is therefore manifest that while in the former it is a cursory examination of issues, in the latter there is a detailed application of mind. There cannot be a mixed procedure where the process for a major punishment and a minor punishment is followed simultaneously. The Court is satisfied that if after proper consideration there was a report of exoneration, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to defend himself and satisfy the disciplinary authority that it required no interference. If there was a report of exoneration, the disciplinary authority is at liberty to differ with the same, but by a procedure permissible in the law. If the respondents found the enquiry report unacceptable, they could not have shirked their responsibility of giving a second show cause notice by jumping to their own conclusions. They cannot choose the procedure at their convenience and change the rules to suit their convenience. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was a serious infirmity in the decision making process, the punishment imposed was minor and therefore the Court keeping in mind the entirety of the 3 nature of the allegations may not remand the matter. The law postulates and mandates that when there has been an infirmity in the decision making process, the order should be set aside from the stage of infirmity and the matter remanded to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the State next submits that the matter is not of a nature which could be called stale so as to persuade the Court not to remand it. The order of punishment dated 25.7.2009 is set aside and the matter remanded to the respondent disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law if he so desires. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)