IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.248 of 2007 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 5. dThe Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Finance Department through Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 7. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. … Respondent nos. 1 to 7 in writ petition- Petitioners. Versus 1. Chaoudhary Bishwanath Prasad Sinha son of late Choudhary Shyam Saran Singh, resident of village- Chandi, English Police Station Sanjauli ( Bikramganj) District- Rohtas. … Petitioner- Respondent- Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. … Respondent no.8 in writ petition- petitioner. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Construction Corporation, Khauja Mill, Near Mahesh High School, Patna. 4. The Works Manager, Bihar State Construction Corporation. … Respondent no. 9 and 10 in writ petition- Opposite Parties 2nd Set. ----------- For petitioners: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. 10 with Mr. Jainendra Kr. Sinha, J.C. to G.A. 10. For the respondents: None. ------- 3/ 26-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 06.02.2006 by which C.W.J.C. No. 14290 of 2002 filed by opposite party no.1 to the review petition was disposed of after considering the material in detail and after holding that the Court by mistake incorrectly observed in its order dated 28th June, 2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8771 of 1998 that the second show cause notice contains reasons to differ from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, the conclusion of which would be that without furnishing any reasons to differ from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved, steps were taken - 2 - to punish the petitioner which per se was illegal and accordingly the second show cause notice and everything followed thereafter was quashed, with observation that within three months from that date it shall be open for the respondents , namely, the petitioner of this review petition , to proceed further in the matter, if they want to differ from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and if not, it would be deemed that the disciplinary proceeding has been terminated in favour of the writ petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order nor does it find any fresh material which was not available with the petitioners even after due diligence at the time of passing of the said order nor this Court even finds any other reason to review the said order of this Court. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)