IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2333 OF 2008 DADAN SINGH, SON OF LATE BUDHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARDI BIGHA, POLICE STATION NASRIGANJ, DISTRICT ROHTAS ….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY –CUM- COMMISSIONER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY –CUM-CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER –CUM- DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF –CUM- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER –CUM- SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********* 2 28/03/2011 At the time when the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, he was posted as Junior Engineer at Garhani, under the Road Sub- division, Piro which comes under the Shahabad Road Division, Ara. The petitioner was suspended on 01.12.2005 and thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry report is at Annexure-4 to the writ application which indicates that there were six charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty of any of the six charges. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-1 which despite the fact that the petitioner was not found guilty of any of the charges, he has been inflicted with 2 minor punishments. It is submitted that if the disciplinary authority had decided to punish the petitioner by inflicting even minor punishments, the second show cause ought to have been served on the petitioner or at least the disciplinary authority should have given reasons for differing with the enquiry report. It is apparent on perusal of Annexure-1 that no reasons have been assigned for differing with the enquiry report and punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, if the disciplinary authority proposed to differ with the enquiry report, it is essential that a show cause notice should be issued to the petitioner so that he may have an opportunity to convince the disciplinary authority and explain the reasons given by the authority to differ with the enquiry report. In the result, I quash Annexure-1 and direct that the concerned respondent should issue a show cause indicating the reasons for differing with the enquiry Officer before inflicting any punishment on the petitioner so that the petitioner may file his show cause. The said procedure should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3 This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )