IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8656 of 2005 TAPESHWAR SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELEC.BOARD &ORS ----------- 04. 21-07-2008 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment which has come to be passed against him on 18.8.2001. Punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect of three years as well as non payment of salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance has been passed. The appellate authority reaffirmed the punishment order in annexure-8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has a very limited submission to make. He says that the process of departmental enquiry was gone into and the enquiry officer categorically recorded that he did not find the charges levelled in the chargesheet to be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. He also recorded that the proceeding was also initiated due to wrong chargesheet and disclosure of mind indicating towards the guilt by the concerned authority. Despite the said categorical finding without giving opportunity to the petitioner or indicating as to why disciplinary authority is disagreeing with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer the punishment in question has been imposed. It is well settled that a disciplinary authority does have jurisdiction to disagree with the finding of enquiry officer but then he must communicate the reasons and the evidence for which he disagrees. Only after hearing the petitioner can he pass appropriate order of punishment. If this vital process has been overlooked then the - 2 - petitioner surely has a cause to make a grievance of the conduct or the action of the respondents. This Court therefore on this ground alone that the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment against the petitioner without taking recourse to the above settled procedure requires to be interfered with. The orders therefore contained in annexures 7 and 8 are hereby quashed. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)