IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1618 of 2007 SHANKAR KISHORE, SON OF SRI BINDESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOELYBHARAW, P.S. MEENAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, DRAINAGE AND INVESTIGATION DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PURNEA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIOSNER, SITAMARHI. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RIGA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ---------------------------------- 02. 01.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Junior Engineer in the Riga Block of Sitamarhi district. He is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.212 dated 1.3.2006, Annexure-1 whereunder he has been censured for the year 1999-2000, one increment withheld with non-cumulative effect with direction not to receive salary beyond the subsistence allowance during the suspension period. Against the punishment order petitioner preferred appeal, which remained pending for over one year, whereafter the instant writ petition was filed. 3. By filing counter affidavit, the State respondents have brought on record the appellate order 2 bearing letter no.183 dated 7.3.2007, Annexure-L dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Perusal of the appellate order, Annexure-L indicates that thereunder no reason has been assigned for dismissing the appeal. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer had earlier exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, whereafter composite second show cause notice dated 27.08.2005 Annexure-8 indicating the reasons for difference and proposed punishment was issued. In reply whereto petitioner filed his reply dated 7.9.2005, Annexure-9 but without considering the reply of the petitioner, Annexure-9 the impugned punishment order was passed. The appellate order dated 7.3.2007, Annexure-L also does not deal with any of the submissions noted in the second show cause reply dated 7.9.2005. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to service of the second show cause notice even the charge memo was not served on the petitioner, although the resolution initiating departmental proceeding, Annexures-5 and 6 dated 14.7.2000, 29.4.2004 was issued but along with the two resolution the memo of charge was not served on the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the State has refuted the aforesaid submission with reference to the statement made in paragraph- 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 and submitted that memo of charge was served on the petitioner during the enquiry. Perusal of paragraph-6 of the 3 counter affidavit however, does not even indicate the date on which the said charge sheet was served on the petitioner nor receipt showing service of the memo of charge has been appended with the counter affidavit. In the circumstances, it is difficult for me to record any finding whether petitioner was served with memo of charge prior to the submission of his written defence and the enquiry report. The appellate order annexed with the counter affidavit of the State does not indicate any reason as to why the submissions made in the second show cause reply as also in the memo of appeal is not being accepted by the appellate authority. In the circumstances, the appellate order dated 7.3.2007, Annexure-L being cryptic and vague is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order dealing with the submission made in the second show cause reply as also the memo of appeal as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the appellate authority i.e. Secretary of the Department. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)