IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2771 of 2006 PARAMJIT SINGH BHATIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 31.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. On allegation of unauthorizedly having absented from the training programme the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. On conclusion of the enquiry, report dated 12.1.2006 came to be submitted exonerating the petitioner. Thereafter the disciplinary authority straightaway proceeded to pass the order of punishment dated 31.8.2006 differing with the enquiry report imposing punishment of one black mark. The fact to that extent being not in dispute, the only proper order to be passed is one remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage that the enquiry report came to be submitted. The law stands well settled that where the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the enquiry report the disciplinary authority is required to give a second show cause notice to the charged officer which must briefly indicate the reasons for which the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the enquiry report along with the grounds for such difference of opinion to enable the delinquent to file his reply to the same in the form of reply to the second show cause notice, whereafter a final decision can be taken by the disciplinary authority. That procedure has not been followed when the final order of punishment came to be passed and along with which the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner. The writ application is therefore allowed to the extent that the impugned order of punishment dated 31.8.2006 as contained in Annexure 18 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report, in accordance with law, if the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the same. Let such appropriate decision be taken by the respondents within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The issue of promotion of the petitioner pending in sealed cover shall abide by such final decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority within the time fixed as aforesaid. At this stage the Court only considers it appropriate to record the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner reserves his right to pursue his allegations of malafides against the respondent no. 5 at a later stage, if necessary. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)