D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties, and with their consent, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission.
(2.) FROM the rival submissions, the following facts emerge: The petitioner was appointed as a Depot Superintendent undo the Respondent -Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. A notice was given to him in March, 2001, informing him that his outturn in the month of January, 2001 was very low and with a direction to improve his outturn in future, a warning was issued to him. Subsequently, the petitioner proceeded on leave with prior permission of his superior in office from 16.04.2001. He was expected to join on 01.05.2001 but he failed to report for joining. Rather, he submitted his joining only on 15.08.2001 i.e. after more than three months. Such period of his absence was allegedly without, prior permission and without leave. Considering the same is an act of misconduct and also considering the fact that he has not improved upon his performance, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him after serving him with the charge -sheet. Not being satisfied with the show -cause replies submitted by him, the proceeding commenced in which he was given opportunity to defend himself. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry officer recorded his finding that the charges against the petitioner did not stand proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority had rather differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proceeded to impose the punishment of stoppage of one increment and declared the period of his absence as leave without pay. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of punishment on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority, having differed from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, no notice was served upon the petitioner nor was the copy of the Enquiry Report served upon him and neither was my reasons assigned informing the grounds for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. This, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the admitted principles of service jurisprudence.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents though contends that since it was a minor punishment proposed to be given to the petitioner, there was no requirement of serving any second show -cause notice but concedes that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the Enquiry Report nor was the petitioner informed by the Disciplinary Authority about the reasons for differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer.;