IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9530 of 2009 CHANDRAGUPTA, SON OF LATE PRAYAG SINGH, VILLAGE AHIYACHAK, P.O. JAMSARI, POLICE STATION BIND VIA ASTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAVAN, PATNA. 2. THE DEPTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAVAN, PATNA-----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 11.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment order bearing Memo No. 709 dated 19.7.2007, Annexure-2 as also the appellate order bearing letter No. 535 dated 23.6.2009, Annexure-1 whereunder he was imposed major punishment and the appeal filed against the punishment order has been dismissed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of the appellate order dated 23.6.2009, Annexure-1 would indicate that the appellate authority has neither considered the charges levelled against the petitioner nor his written defence nor the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer nor the punishment imposed on him and has passed the appellate order stating that every aspect of the matter has already been considered at the stage of departmental proceeding/second show cause notice. In this background, learned counsel submitted that the appellate order should be set aside forthwith with direction to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, his written defence and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter the contents of second show cause reply. It is also pointed out that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner of all the - 2 - charges levelled against him, which fact is evident from the Inquiry Report dated 31.7.2004, Annexure-8 but without giving reasons for differing therewith, the punishment order was passed reiterating both the charges. In this connection, it is pointed out that if the disciplinary authority wishes to differ with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer then he has to record reasons therefor and not to reiterate the charges again. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the appellate order dated 23.6.2009, Annexure-1 and remit back the matter to the appellate authority to re-consider the same in accordance with law in the light of my observations aforesaid. It is made clear that the appellate authority should consider the matter as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)