The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the delinquent's representation against adverse findings of the Inquiry Officer, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice.

The short question involved in the present writ application is as to whether in a departmental proceeding, a delinquent has a right to make representation against the adverse findings of the Inquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority, after having received the report of Inquiry Officer, in order to convince the Disciplinary Authority that such findings of the• Inquiry Officer are not correct and the Disciplinary Authority in turn, has an obligation to consider such representation before coming to his own findings as regards the delinquent's guilt.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application is aggrieved by an order dated 30.11.2000, whereby the competent authority has imposed upon him following punishments:-

(i) "Censure" to be entered into ACR of the petitioner of the years 1988-1989.

(ii) Reversion from the post of Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer.

(iii) The petitioner shall not be entitled to any emoluments other than subsistence allowance for the period during which he remained under suspension, which period, however, shall be counted for the purpose of his pensionary benefits.

3. With the issuance of charge-sheet dated 4.6.1991, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, containing altogether three charges. The first charge against the petitioner related to splitting the work of maintenance and repair of Canal under Phulwaria Canal Division, Sirdala to bring the work within his jurisdiction for the purpose of entering into an agreement and further he made payments on hand receipts after preparing first and last bill under Rs. 2,000/-. The second charge related to proceeding with the work without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority. It was also alleged against him that he was responsible for embezzlement of Government money to the tune of Rs. 58,97,837/-. An Inquiry Officer was appointed.

4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. In course of the departmental enquiry, witnesses appear to have been examined. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.1.1992, to the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer did not find all tile charges to have been proved against the petitioner except charge No. 1 which related to splitting of work for the purpose of entering into an agreement and making of payment on hand receipts by preparing first and last bills under Rs. 2,000/-. He found that the petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction with regard to financial powers in doing so. The Inquiry Officer did not find, however, the charge of embezzlement and of getting certain documents disappeared from the office and diversion of fund to be proved. The Inquiry Officer also came to a conclusion that the allegation against the petitioner of allotment of work to dummy contractors could also not be proved in course of departmental enquiry.

5. Thereafter, by a letter dated 9.4.1995, issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, seeking his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer. Along with the second show cause notice dated 9.4.1995, a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the second show cause notice on 27.5.1995. Thereafter, another second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner through letter dated 19.9.1997 issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Development• Department, Government of Bihar. The said letter does not refer to the petitioner's reply dated 27.5.1995 to the earlier second show cause notice. Through the second show cause notice dated 19.9.1997, the petitioner was informed that on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the State Government has decided to impose upon him, the punishment of reversion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. Again, enclosing a copy of