IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.728 of 2009 DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Jagdeep Narain, Resident of Village and Post- Sikathi, P.S. Dhansoin, Dist. Buxar (Bihar) working in Public Health Engineering Department, (PHED), as Chief Engineer. …Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Main (Old) Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, PHED, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, PHED, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna …Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State : A.C. to AAG 6 ----------- 3/ 23.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the writ court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner against the award of punishment of censor. The show cause notice given to the appellant-writ petitioner discloses that he was entrusted with conducting departmental enquiry against an Executive Engineer of Public Health Engineering Department, Nawada Division. After the appellant submitted his enquiry report, the disciplinary authority i.e. the State of Bihar felt dissatisfied with the report in which the charges against the proceedee had been found to be not proved. The show cause notice discloses that the appellant was subjected to a charge that he had conducted the departmental enquiry contrary to rules and since he had held that the charges were not proved hence, his role as Enquiry Officer appears to be suspect and the enquiry report could have led to undue benefit to the delinquent employee. - 2 - In his show cause, the appellant, who was the then Regional Chief Engineer, has raised a very valid and pertinent issue that if such kind of show cause notice are issued to Enquiry Officers then the high Officials entrusted with the departmental enquiry will have no option but to submit the enquiry report against the delinquent employee or to decline from acting as Enquiry Officer. We are in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner that the charges as appearing from the show cause notice are vague. No particulars have been given as to which rule was violated by the appellant in conducting enquiry and how the enquiry report could benefit the delinquent employee when it was always open for the disciplinary authority to differ from the enquiry report and take a different view on the basis of the materials, if available. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant-writ petitioner was subjected to a show cause notice for awarding minor punishment of censor on entirely vague and non-est allegation. The punishment of censor contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, dated 23.12.2008, is quashed. The order of the writ court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. JA/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.)