IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.518 of 2010 1. Shankar Prasad Poddar S/O Late Gopal Prasad R/O Moh- Lal Bazar, Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, Distt. West Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Road Construction Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Secretary Road Construction Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3/ 26/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2002 from the post of Executive Engineer. He is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 11.3.2008 visiting him with the punishment of stoppage of 20% of his pension for five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that memo. of charge on four grounds was served upon him, duly replied to, whereafter the enquiry officer submitted a report of exoneration. A second show cause notice is stated to have been issued to the petitioner for a difference of opinion on some of the charges which was never attempted to be directly served upon the petitioner. After a press communiqué straightaway, as apparent from the counter affidavit of the respondents, the impugned punishment depriving the valuable opportunity by a second show cause at the second stage 2 of the departmental proceedings to persuade the departmental authority that he was entitled to retain the benefit of exoneration has been denied. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the second show cause notice for difference of opinion was issued on 27.9.2005. Referring to the extract of the press communiqué at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit dated 5.1.2006 he states that notices by registered post were sent to the residential address of the petitioner. He did not respond to the same leading to the press communiqué. The petitioner has therefore had full opportunity to present his defence. If he did not avail the same, given the nature of allegations with regard to financial matters, the Court may not interfere with it. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that the registered notices may have been sent to his home address where he does not reside any more. That perhaps may be of no avail to the petitioner as in normal circumstances of government duties the notice must have gone to him at the address mentioned in his service book.. The judgment in 2005(4) P.L.J.R. 374 (Ram Dihal Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar) relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail as in that case a press communiqué was issued straightaway 3 stating that the home address of the petitioner was not available in the records. Such is not the case presently. While the petitioner must bear the blame for having been burdened with the impugned order, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that reduction of 20% of his pension for five years is undoubtedly a serious matter. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact there were only procedural violations in release of the amounts, but that there has been no embezzlement or misappropriation and the person to whom the advances had gone has been exonerated in the criminal case. Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the present is a case which requires a fair opportunity to be given to the petitioner to meet the second show cause notice issued for a difference of opinion. This shall not be construed as any finding of the Court that the petitioner was not at fault in not participating in the enquiry or that the punishment was not justified. The Court does not return any finding with regard to the correctness or incorrectness of the impugned order dated 11.3.2008. Without interfering with the impugned order the Court grants the liberty to the petitioner to furnish his reply to the second show cause notice within a maximum period of four weeks 4 from today. The respondents in all fairness are expected to consider the same under the authority of the order of this Court. The impugned order dated 11.3.2008 shall be no impediment to the same. If the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to any relief, it is expected that the relief to the extent found admissible by annulment/variation/modification of the punishment, as the case may be, shall be ordered accordingly. If the respondents be of the opinion that the impugned order requires no interference, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The Court does not stay the operation of the impugned order, but the effect of the same shall ultimately depend upon the fresh final order that may be passed by the respondents. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)