IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18164 of 2009 1. BHOLA CHAUDHARY S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- HARIGAON, P.S.- BELAGANJ, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE HOME COMMISSIONER (POLICE), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AURANGABAD RANGE, AURANGABAD 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JAHANABAD 8. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER, GHOSHI ANCHAL, JAHANABAD ----------- 2. 16.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On allegations of alleged unauthorized absence for about 42 days, the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings and an enquiry report submitted consequent to which a second show cause notice was issued to him and final orders of punishment for dismissal passed affirmed in Appeal and Revision. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13374 of 2001, which noticed inter alia that the final order of punishment had been passed before expiry of the time fixed for filing of the show cause. Consequently, the order of punishment, the appellate order and the revisional order were set aside. The 2 respondents were directed to proceed afresh from the stage of illegality i.e., from the stage of giving him a fresh second show cause notice, consider the reply to the same whereafter final orders were to be passed. Contrary to the direction of this Court, the respondents proceeded to hold a fresh departmental proceeding. From the counter affidavit it is not in controversy that the petitioner did not question the second proceeding and participated in the same when he allegedly refused to cross-examine witnesses also. Once the petitioner participated in this fresh departmental proceeding, all issues earlier become irrelevant, including any earlier enquiry report. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13374 of 2001 did not issue any specific direction for his reinstatement, in the nature of the controversy. The law stands well settled that where an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding is set aside on grounds of procedural irregularity, it does not result in automatic reinstatement unless there be direction to that effect but only results in continuation of the departmental proceeding afresh from the stage of illegality. Once the respondents choose to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding rather than to proceed 3 afresh from the stage of illegality in the earlier departmental proceedings, there can be no half way house for the respondents. They are required to follow all procedure again. The counter affidavit and the impugned order of punishment dated 20.6.2008, leave this Court satisfied that the respondents in the fresh departmental proceeding have not issued a fresh second show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner before issuance of the fresh impugned order dated 20.6.2008. Once the respondents decided to hold a fresh departmental proceeding rather than proceed from the stage of procedural irregularity in the first departmental proceeding, the enquiry report in the first departmental proceeding looses its relevance and has no applicability and cannot be considered as findings have to be arrived at afresh with a liberty to the delinquent to meet the same. The order of punishment dated 20.6.2008 is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority who shall now issue a second show cause notice to the petitioner in pursuance of such fresh departmental enquiry along with a copy of the fresh enquiry report with an opportunity to show cause 4 within time specified by him in the notice and after the petitioner files is reply/does not file his reply within the specified time, the disciplinary authority shall proceed to then pass final orders in accordance with law. Let the same be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The submission on behalf of the petitioner with regard to aspects of quantum of punishment etc. are matters to be more appropriately considered by the authorities themselves if he takes that ground in his reply to the second show cause notice. The application stands allowed to the extent indicated only. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)