Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 30.6.2015, passed by the Special Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna i.e. the Respondent No. 3.

2. The present case has a chequered history, inasmuch as a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, vide order dated 23.6.2010 and a memo of charge was served upon her, whereafter she had submitted her show cause reply dated 21.7.2010 and the Inquiry Officer had then conducted the departmental proceeding, whereafter he had submitted enquiry report dated 19.10.2010, exonerating the petitioner herein, nonetheless, the disciplinary authority had passed an order of punishment dated 16.5.2011, inflicting the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and it was further directed that she would not be entitled to any payment for the suspension period except the subsistence allowances already paid to her. The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however, the same had stood dismissed, by an order dated 29.11.2011.

3. The aforesaid two orders dated 16.5.2011 and 29.11.2011 were challenged by the petitioner, by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 15083 of 2012, which was allowed, vide order dated 7.2.2013 and the impugned orders dated 16.5.2011 and 29.11.2011 were quashed on the ground that the disciplinary authority had not issued any notice to the petitioner disclosing reasons for differing with the findings of the inquiry Officer as also had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with regard to such difference. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had issued a second show cause notice dated 4.3.2015, to which the petitioner had furnished her reply dated 7.4.2015, detailing therein her defence and stating that since she was, at that moment of time, posted as Child Development Project Officer, Nanpur, Sitamarhi, she had taken all the precautions and in fact, had also issued show cause to the Sevika of the centre in question with regard to the irregularities, committed by the said Sevika as also she has not been alleged to have engaged in any irregularity at the centre in question, which also stands substantiated from the enquiry report, submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 19.10.2010. Thus, it is submitted that the present case is a case of no evidence, hence, no punishment can be inflicted upon the petitioner. This aspect of the matter is no longer res integra, inasmuch as the same has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 1970, as also in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order dated 30.6.2015, passed by the Respondent No. 3, would show that the same is mere narration of facts and has neither dealt with the defence put forth by the petitioner nor mentions instances of irregularities, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the proof thereof, hence, the same is also based on no evidence, apart from being a cryptic order, not depicting proper application of mind, inasmuch as no cogent or succinct reason have been furnished for inflicting punishment upon the petitioner, which is an indispensable part of a decision making process. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Janeshwar Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2022 (1) PLJR 169 [: 2022 (1) BLJ 161], paragraphs no. 5 and 9 whereof are reproduced hereinabove: –

“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority was exercising quasi-judicial power. Therefore, he was bound to mention the defence raised by the petitioner in his show cause which would have been material for consideration before the authority and there