IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15206 of 2009 1. PANDEY VENKATESH PRASAD SINHA S/O LATE PANDEY BHAIROW PRASAD VILL- MATUKPUR, P.S. BHOJPUR, DISTT. BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ----------- 2. 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally on seven charges. He was exonerated on six charges in the enquiry when one charge (item-6) was stated to be proved. A second show cause notice followed whereafter punishment of stoppage of five increment with cumulative effect and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension was passed on 30.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the solitary proved charge submits that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on conjectures and surmises. It does not contain a positive conclusive opinion after consideration of evidence and discussion of materials. It only refers to certain reports to indict the petitioner. The second show cause notice and punishment stands vitiated. Learned counsel for the State urges that the order of punishment has been passed after compliance with 2 procedures when the petitioner had adequate opportunity to reply to the second show cause notice also. The proved charge relates to irregularities in distribution of foodgrains at the Anganbari centre and in payment of honorarium as also running the office from the residence. On the third issue there is no finding of the enquiry officer while holding that the charge stands proved. In so far as the first and second issues are concerned, he only refers to certain reports submitted to him to hold that the petitioner had been reported to commit irregularities. There is no discussion with regard to the nature of the materials and evidence in the reports in question, that the reports were exhibited and proved by those who had written the report, with opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine those who has submitted report against him. This Court therefore finds it difficult to sustain the order of punishment in its present form. The order of punishment dated 30.11.2007 and the enquiry report with regard to the proved charge no.6 is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the inquiry officer to complete the enquiry in accordance with law and the discussions contained hereinabove whereafter the proceedings may be brought to its logical conclusion. Let the same be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before 3 the disciplinary authority. The time period being applicable provided the petitioner himself co-operates. The writ application stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)