Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. Writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 7.4.2014 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) by which three increments of the petitioner have been withheld with cumulative effect. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 25.8.2018 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.9.2018 (Annexure 22 to the writ petition), by which Appellate Authority has affirmed the punishment order dated 7.4.2014.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while working as the Executive Engineer in Patna City office of the Company, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide resolution dated 23.12.2011 and having been found prima facie guilty of misconduct and negligence of duty, he was served charge sheet to which he submitted his written statement. On conclusion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted on 6.2.2013 (Annexure 7). However, Enquiry Officer did not find charges to be proved and held that all the charges are based on suspicion and conjectures. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority recorded opinion of the disagreement to the enquiry report and issued 2nd show cause with a copy of the enquiry report (Annexure 8) which was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 7.12.2013 (Annexure 9). On consideration of reply of the petitioner, Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment of withholding of/stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner’s appeal dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure 11) was also rejected by enhancing the punishment of reverting him to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer vide resolution dated 15.6.2015 (Annexure 12). Being aggrieved, petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No. 13265/2015 with prayer that his appeal may be heard and decided on merits. Writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 16.4.2018 (Annexure 14) in compliance of which petitioner preferred appeal. Thereafter petitioner was asked for explanation which was submitted by him on 29.6.2018 (Annexure 20 & 21). Finally, appeal was rejected vide order dated 25.8.2018 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.9.2018 (Annexure 22).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails impugned orders dated 7.4.2014 (Annexure 10) and order dated 25.8.2018 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.9.2018 (Annexure 22) on the ground that the petitioner had been exonerated in the enquiry report dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure 7) observing that the charges were based on suspicion and conjectures. He submits that Disciplinary Authority has not given any findings on the articles of charge. Besides this, he has neither assigned any reason nor any material has been discussed by him upon which he has formed opinion to arrive at such findings that punishment be imposed upon the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served 2nd show cause notice with the points of disagreement to his reply, before awarding major punishment. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority, instead of issuing separate show cause notice dealing with point of disagreement, issued further show cause notice asking for submission of reply, which is in violation of the disciplinary rules as also the principle of natural justice. He submits that the 2nd show cause reply of the petitioner has not been considered at all. Impugned orders do not disclose application of mind as to why defence submitted by the petitioner was not found acceptable or satisfactory to the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority. He next submits that the action of the respondents is in violation of Rule 18(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules. Reliance is place on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Bihar Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Company (respondent nos. 2 to 8) supports impugned orders and submits that the impugned orders do not su