IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.485 of 2002 BIBHISHAN PANDIT, son of late Bhagala Pandit, resident of village-Bhagwanpur, Post-office- Mahamada, Dist-Muzaffarpur at present Storekeeper, Ganga Pant Canal Division Suryagarha, Munger. Versus (1) THE STATE OF BIHAR through the secretary, Department of Water Resource (Irrigation), Govt.of Bihar, Patna. (2) The Deputy Secretary to the Govt, Department of Water Resource (Irrigation), Govt.of Bihar, Patna. (3) The Chief Engineer, Water Resource (Irrigation) Department, Bhagalpur. (4) The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kharagpur, Munger. (5) The Executive Engineer, Ganga Pant Canal Division, Suryagarha, Munger. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, SC-IV 4/ 20-Oct-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 dated 30.6.2001 petitioner has been awarded a punishment for recovery of Rs.50,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month either from his salary or from the retiral benefits. In case of recovery from retiral benefits the recovery is to be made in one lump sum. It is also indicated in the impugned order that for the period of suspension the petitioner would get 2 nothing beyond subsistence allowance. The writ petition can be disposed of on a very short issue and therefore detailed facts need not be gone into. In the disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted a report which has been brought on record as Annexure-6 which is dated 4.2.2000. The enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges. Thereafter by Annexure-5 dated 9.11.2000 petitioner was given a notice. Paragraph-1 of that notice simply mentions the fact that petitioner who was a Storekeeper, in connection with transfer of certain amount of iron rods from Pant Canal Division No.2, Munger to Irrigation Division, Garhi (Jamui) had been subjected to disciplinary proceeding. Paragraph-2 mentions that Government had examined enquiry report and had differed with the same on account of a fact mentioned in that paragraph under inverted commas. Paragraph- 3 mentions that for the proved charges the Government has decided to impose the punishments noticed above. Paragraph-4 mentions that petitioner was required to submit his show-cause in respect of proposed punishment mentioned in 3 paragraph-3 within 15 days otherwise final decision will be taken. On the basis of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank V. Kunj Bihari Mishra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 665 (Madan Sharma V. The State of Bihar ) it was submitted that notice in Annexure-5 was not a proper and sufficient notice required to be given to the delinquent employee in case the disciplinary authority differs with the enquiry report and proposes to find the concerned employee guilty of the charges. The law on the subject is now well settled. In case the authority decides to differ from the conclusions of the enquiry officer, it is competent to do so but before coming to its own finding, it is required to give an opportunity of show-cause to the delinquent officer and for this a show-cause notice is required to be given mentioning the tentative reasons on account of which the disciplinary authority is inclined to give a finding different from that of the enquiry officer. At 4 this stage, the notice must show that the disciplinary authority has not come to a final finding regarding guilt of the delinquent officer rather the findings are tentative and the reasons for such tentative findings are required to be indicated to the delinquent employee so that he may represent in the matter with a view to persuade the disciplinary authority not to take a different view than that of the enquiry officer. On perusal of Annexure-5 it is found that the same does not meet the requirement of law. The disciplinary authority has indicated in Annexure-5 that it has already come to a firm finding regarding guilt of the petitioner after differing with the report of the enquiry officer. Such course of action is not in accordance with law and violates the principles of natural justice. In view of the aforesaid discussions the impugned order of punishment contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. It will be open for the disciplinary authority, if it is so inclined, to proceed against the petitioner after giving him a proper notice as indicated above giving tentative 5 reasons for differing with the enquiry report and thereafter the proceeding may be concluded one way or the other in accordance with law. Since the matter has remained pending for a long period hence the disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the proceeding one way or the other as per law within a period of six months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)