IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2245 of 2009 Pramod Kumar Kamat . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3/ 05/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, is stated to have been placed under suspension on 3.4.2006 and a memo. of charges on 8 counts inter connected served on 1.7.2006. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report of exoneration on 14.6.2007. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.6.2007 by the disciplinary authority annexing a copy of the enquiry report whereafter the order of punishment has followed imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and censure to be entered in his character roll for the year-2005-06 and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension which was otherwise to be counted for service. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a short submission to urge that if the disciplinary authority proposed to differ with the enquiry report, he was required to give notice to the petitioner setting out the grounds for such difference of opinion along with the tentative reasons 2 and materials for the same to enable the petitioner to satisfy the disciplinary authority that he was entitled to the benefit of exoneration. Referring to the second show cause notice it is submitted that it does not contain any grounds for the difference of opinion with regard to findings in the enquiry report. It is nothing but a reiteration of what the charges were and the stand of the Department already disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the State is unable to satisfy the Court from the enquiry report read with the second show cause notice how it meets the requirement of the law by setting out the grounds for difference of opinion with the Enquiry Officer along with the tentative reasons for such difference of opinion and the materials in support thereof to enable the petitioner to meet the same. The procedural impropriety vitiates not only the order of punishment dated 16.8.2007, but also the order in review jurisdiction dated 6.8.2008 upholding the punishment. Both the orders are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)