IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12105 of 2004 Annapurna Devi, wife of late Lakhsmi Kant Thakur, resident of village- Gandhwair, P.S. Sakri, District – Madhubani _______ Petitioiner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar Police Headquarter, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. 5. The Zonal Inspector General Railway Zone, Patna. 6. The Superintendent of Police Headquarter Madhepura-cum- Conducting Officer, Departmental Enquiry. _____ Respondents ----------- 8. 8.9.2010 It may be a fact that this is the third visit by the erstwhile petitioner before this Court against the order of punishment, which came to be passed, based on a departmental enquiry. On the last occasion petitioner was relegated to the appellate authority and after the order was passed in appeal, the petitioner came back before the High Court challenging the said order. During the pendency of the writ application the original petitioner namely, Laxmi Kant Thakur died and has now been substituted by his wife, who is pursuing the matter on behalf of her husband. There are two pointed submissions with regard to the order of punishment and the enquiry as such, one that no copy of enquiry report was furnished to the husband of the petitioner and two, that no second show cause was issued before imposition of punishment. In absence of any clear pleadings on behalf of the State the Court was compelled to call for the original record of the departmental proceeding. The same came to be furnished by the counsel representing 2 the State. So far as non furnishing of enquiry report is concerned, the pleading of the petitioner on this score cannot be maintained because this aspect was never raised at any point of time before any authority much less the appellate authority. However, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that there is no evidence that any second show cause against the proposed punishment was issued to the husband of the petitioner. At least that is the position which is reflected from the original record produced by the counsel for the State. Be that as it may, non issuance of second show cause to the delinquent before imposition of punishment is an aberration which goes to the root of the matter and therefore the impugned orders contained in Annexure-2 dated 15th May, 2004, passed by the disciplinary authority as well as Annexure-16 dated 11.6.2001, passed by the appellate authority, stand quashed. The benefit of the same will accrue to the present petitioner. The writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)