P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:—

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 7862 dated 30.7.2014 issued under the signature of Joint secretary- OSD- Cum-Chief Vigilance Officer, Building Construction Department, Govt. Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of ‘Dismissal’ from Service for the single charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-, though this charge could not be proved in departmental enquiry and also without considering the submission of the petitioner his reply to the second show cause, And also this punishment order has been passed without considering the submission of the petitioner fact that a criminal proceeding is still pending for the identical charge before the Special Judge(Vigilance), Patna.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer with all consequential benefit.

(ii) For holding that the second enquiry report contained in Memo No. 52 dated 04.03.2014 is without any basis and against the mandate of law because the same enquiry officer has earlier submitted his enquiry report on 03.06.2013 vide letter No. 1752 in which he has specifically stated that the charge against the petitioner with regard to taking of bribe is not proved.

(v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The petitioner while holding the post of Executive Engineer was subjected to disciplinary proceedings vide Article of charge dated 30th October, 2012. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-memo on 27.12.2012.

4. Dissatisfied with the petitioner’s reply, the disciplinary authority proceeded to conduct enquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 03.06.2013 in which it is stated that the alleged charge were not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the inquiry officer’s finding, remanded the matter to the inquiry officer to commence and conclude the enquiry from the defective stage on 22.07.2013. For the second time, inquiry officer held that charges levelled against the petitioner is not proved. Disciplinary authority disagreeing with the inquiry officer’s second report proceeded to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.03.2014 by stipulating certain time-limit. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.04.2014 to the second show cause notice. Based on these material information, disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service on 30th July, 2014. Thus, petitioner is before this Court.

5. Perusal of the dismissal order dated 30th July, 2014, it is evident that petitioner’s explanation to the second show cause notice has not been considered only on the score that it was belated. It is to be noted that on two occasions the inquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the inquiry officer’s report proceeded to issue second show cause notice for which petitioner has submitted his explanation on 25.04.2014. The same has not been considered as is evident from para 7 and 8 of the dismissal order.

6. In the light of these facts and circumstances, this Court has to draw inference that there is total non-application of mind. It is a question of livelihood, if his services were dismissed without addressing his explanation to the second show cause notice. In other words, the very object of issuance of show cause notice and obtaining reply would be defeated.

7. In the light of these facts and circumstances, order of dismissal dated 30.07.2014 is set aside.

8. Disciplinary authority is hereby directed to consider each of the con