IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6967 of 2009 Munni Lal Rajak . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 02.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry and a report of exoneration on two charges and suggestive of exoneration of third charge was submitted. A final order of punishment was passed on 10.7.2008 visiting him with censure to be entered in the character rolls for the years 2003-04 and stoppage of two increments with non cumulative effect. His application for Revision of that order under Rule 28 of the Bihar CCS Rules, 2005 has been rejected on 29.7.2011. I.A. No. 5182 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner questioning the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood exonerated of charges 2 and 3. On charge no. 1 the enquiry officer opined that payment had been made for the works in question but there may have been procedural infirmities in the manner for release of the payment, that cannot be indictment. The 2 enquiry officer therefore recorded that he was not satisfied to record a finding of guilt against the petitioner even on charge no. 1. The disciplinary authority had jurisdiction to differ with the report but only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by giving a second show cause notice setting out tentative grounds for difference of opinion. In absence of this procedure having been followed the impugned order dated 10.7.2008 is vitiated. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It leaves the Court dissatisfied that the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authority in event of a difference of opinion with the enquiry officer on a report for exoneration has been followed. There can be no two opinions that even on charge no. 1, the enquiry officer found it difficult to record an indictment and therefore opined that there had been only procedural irregularities for which the petitioner did not deserve a punishment. That was again a matter in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. The order of punishment dated 10.7.2008 in its present form is therefore not 3 sustainable in law and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the submission of the enquiry report, if so advised. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)