M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tapen Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Lal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the State of Bihar.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet served on her and the notice dated 23.3.1998 issued to the Enquiry Officer for holding fresh enquiry, the second show cause notice dated 21.8.1998 and the final order of punishment dated 7.6.1999. Copies of these notices/letters have been annexed as Annexures 6, 9, 11 and 12 to the writ application.

3. The petitioner is the Principal of Indira Gandhi Valika School, Hazaribagh. In 1996 she was served with a charge-sheet making allegation against her regarding a residential quarter. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 14.7,1997, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ application. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the entire materials and evidences, has recorded a conclusive finding that not a single charge has been proved against the petitioner. On receipt of the said enquiry report, respondent No. 5. by letter dated 23.3.1998, asked the Enquiry Officer to hold a fresh inquiry and submit a fresh report. The Enquiry Officer, in reply to the said letter, informed the respondents that he has no jurisdiction to hold fresh inquiry and submit a fresh report. The respondent No. 5, then Issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why proposed punishment by way of dismissal from service be not imposed upon her. A copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure 11 to the writ application. The petitioner submitted her reply/show cause to the said notice and then final impugned order of punishment has been passed.

4. Mr. Tapen Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly assailed the impugned notice, Annexure 11, and submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not correctly followed the law and the procedure while issuing the second show cause notice and imposing punishment. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel.

5. From perusal of Annexure 11. it appears that respondent No. 5, the Disciplinary Authority, has stated in the said show cause notice; "on perusal of the charge-sheet and the explanation the following charges have been proved against her". Instead of giving reasons and disclosing materials on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority came to such finding, the charges have been reiterated in the said notice. After reiterating the said charges the petitioner was simply called upon to submit her reply/show cause. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the procedure adopted by respondent No. 5 is not in accordance with law.

6. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and If he wishes to impose punishment, the second show cause notice must disclose such findings or reasons on the basis of which he disagrees with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Reference may be made to a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar, reported In AIR 1963 SC 1612, wherein it was held that if the Disciplinary Authority differs with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, it is necessary that its provisional conclusion in that behalf should be specified in the second notice. The Disciplinary Authority should specifically state that he differs with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and then indicate the nature of action proposed to be taken against the delinquent employee.

7. Similarly in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 157, their Lordships observed that the purpose of the show cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the Disciplinary Authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer for the reas