IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5236 of 2010 1. SHRINIWAS CHAUDHARY S/O LATE HARIHAR CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- MANGOLPUR, P.S.- ITAHRI, DISTT.- BUXAR, AT PRESENT OF KAUTILAYA NAGAR, VIDHAYAK COLONY, P.O.- VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S.- AERODRAM, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM-ADDL. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. JOINT SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY CUM CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 23/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2006 imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and warning to be recorded in his character roll for the year-2000-2001. It is submitted that a memo. of four charges were served on the petitioner on 13.3.1992 which was duly replied on 3.6.1992. Thereafter the order of punishment followed on 18.7.2006. He had been exonerated on 3 out of 4 charges. No second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Referring to Annexure-3 it is submitted that the second show cause notice was sent to the petitioner’s earlier place of posting at Dehri on Sone in the Road Construction Department - 2 - and not at Sasaram in the Rural Department where he was posted at the relevant time. It is next submitted that no departmental proceeding was held as petitioner was not intimated any dates for appearance nor was any enquiry report submitted, much less given to him. Learned counsel for the State submits from the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not reply to the second show cause notice. Learned State Counsel finds himself helpless to explain the failure in paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit to deny the specific assertion on facts of the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ application of his place of posting leading to non-receipt of the second show cause notice. Furthermore, from paragraph-11 of the writ application, not denied in the counter affidavit, that there was no departmental proceeding held in accordance with law by submission of an enquiry report, this Court is satisfied that in either event of the matter, the punishment dated 18.7.2006 is not sustainable in its present form. It is accordingly quashed, but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of the reply to the charges by the petitioner, in accordance with law. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)