IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.578 of 2008 JAI KRISHNA BHINDWAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 30/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with a memorandum of charges and evidence in support of the charge as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated. The petitioner filed his reply to the same. After consideration of his reply the authorities thought it fit to be a proper case for imposition of a minor punishment for stoppage of two increments with non- cumulative effect and censure to be entered in his A.C.R. for 2003-2004 as ordered on 5.4.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a memorandum of charge was issued, the authorities were required to hold a full-fledged departmental enquiry with proper opportunity to the petitioner and only whereafter any order of punishment could have been passed. Additionally, even before imposition of the minor punishment no personal hearing was given. For the counter affidavit it appears that even his memorial against the order of punishment has been rejected. The procedure prescribed in law for a 2 departmental proceeding for major punishment and that in case of minor punishment are fundamentally different. While the former requires a full-fledged enquiry, proving of the charge, evidence, documentary and oral followed by the cross-examination in absence of which any orders of punishment may be vitiated, in the case of a minor punishment all that is required is a show cause notice and consideration of the cause shown. The impugned order of punishment recites that the cause shown by him had been adequately taken into consideration and that the work done was not in conformity with the specifications leading to the conclusion of laxity in completion of the works. This Court is not satisfied that the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing as a matter of right even in a case of minor punishment. It shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court also to enter into the merits of the matter when it is only concerned with the decision making process. There being no infirmity in the decision making process, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)