IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2147 of 2008 OM PRAKASH VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 23.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very short issue requiring remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration and passing fresh order, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of the writ application at this stage for the limited purpose. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that without prejudice to his rights to assail the findings in the disciplinary enquiry on merits, if required, at a later stage, for the present he confines his submission to the limited issue that the disciplinary authority in pursuance of the reply to the second show cause submitted by the petitioner has acted mechanically without independent application of mind in passing the impugned order of punishment dated 4.1.2008 inasmuch as he has relied upon the comments sought for by him from the Inquiry Officer without any discussion regarding his own satisfaction from the materials on record albeit by a brief discussion of the allegations, the enquiry report and the reply to the show cause displaying independent application of mind. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade the Court that in fact the disciplinary authority has taken the entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration from all aspects, which is adequate reflection of application of mind. - 2 - On a plain reading of the recitals in the impugned order, this Court finds it difficult to compartmentalize the brain of the disciplinary authority so as to arrive at a distinction between the application of mind by him to the comments furnished by the Inquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority, as distinct from the subsequent application of independent mind based on the comments. This Court is satisfied that the recitals in the impugned order itself reflect that the mind of the disciplinary authority has been clouded by the comments furnished by the Inquiry Officer. The procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in law. He is liable to apply his mind independently by a brief discussion of the materials including the procedures of the departmental enquiry, the report of the Inquiry Officer, the reply to second show cause by the petitioner to arrive at his own independent determination and satisfaction. The impugned order dated 4.1.2008 is, therefore, set aside for that limited purpose and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)