IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2104 of 2002 Dr.Uday Kumar Singh, son of Late Baijnath Singh, represently posted as Medical Officer, Department of Opthalmology Mobile Unit, Sadar Hospital, Arrah, District- Bhojpur, resident of Station Road, Fathua, P.S. Fathua, District- Patna ……… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary 2.The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 3.The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 4.The Regional Dy.Director, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 5.The Civil Assistant Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda (Biharsharif) 6.The Civil Assistant Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Arrah, District- Bhojpur 7.The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 8.The Secretary, Department of Finance, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Govt. of Bihar, Patna …………. Respondents ----------- 4. 27/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the punishment order contained in notification dated 3.8.2000, annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. Punishment order itself shows that it is not a speaking order and punishment has been imposed merely noticing earlier resolutions issued by the Department putting petitioner under suspension and initiating departmental proceeding. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an enquiry report, as contained in Annexure-4, to show that the enquiry officer did not find any of the four charges proved against petitioner. He submits that in case the disciplinary authority wanted to differ with the enquiry report, he ought to have issued second show cause notice to petitioner indicating the reasons for his disagreement with the enquiry report with opportunity to the petitioner to submit his representation. Thereafter only, he could pass orders of punishment indicating reasons for the same. This basic rule of service jurisprudence has not been followed in this case. Counter affidavits have been filed in this case by different authorities. However, counter affidavits are conspicuously silent in respect of this requirement of Principals of Natural Justice. Therefore, apparently the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure-5, was issued in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment, as contained in Annexure-5 is - 3 - quashed. Consequent to quashing of the said order, petitioner will be entitled to full salary of the period and continuity in service. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)