JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. The petitioner in this application has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing office order No. 185 dated 3.2.1992 office order No. 794 dated 11.5.1992 and Memo No. 12724 dated 17.11.1992 passed by the respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ application. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction from this court that he be given second time bound promotion to the post of Senior Selection Grade Accountant. 3. By reason of Annexure-1 to the writ application, the petitioner was granted time bound promotion with effect from 1.5.1990 in place of 30.4.1987. By reason of Annexure-2 to the writ application, the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar which according to him should have been allowed on 1.5.1990 and by reason of Annexure-3 to the writ application the appeal filed by him against the aforesaid orders has been rejected. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor in Rajya Transport, and was posted at Gaya. He was later on promoted to the post of Accountant and was posted at Jamshedpur in the year 1968. He was promoted to the cadre of Senior Selection Grade Accountant on 1.4.1981 and he was posted as Senior Auditor in the audit section of the Headquarters at Patna in the year 1988. By an order dated 14.10.1988 his scale of pay was revised with effect from 1.4.1981 but the pecuniary benefit was granted with effect from 1.4.1983. 4. In the year 1989, a charge-sheet dated 5.2.1989 was issued as against the petitioner and on 5.8.1989 he submitted his show cause. On 7.9.1989 the petitioner was given second time bound promotion. The Enquiry Officer on 16.1.1990 submitted his report absolving the petitioner of all the charges. On 1.7.1991 the petitioner however was served with a copy of the order dated 17.6.1991 whereby the respondent No. 4 purported to have differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and inflicted a penalty of censure and warning against him. A representation was made by the petitioner on 1.7.1991 before the respondent No.5 praying therein that he be permitted to avail the second promotional benefit with effect from 1.4.1981, the pecuniary benefit therefor with effect from 12.9.1983 and a consequent time bound promotion with effect from 30.4.1987. 5. A representation was made by the petitioner on 1.7.1991 before the respondent No.5 praying therein that he be permitted to avail the second promotional benefit with effect from 1.4.1981, the pecuniary benefit therefor with effect from 12.9.1983 and a consequent time bound promotion with effect from 30.4.1987. 5. By reason of the impugned order dated 30.4.1987 the said representation of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner had been granted time bound promotion with effect from 1.5.1990. By an order dated 1.4.1985 the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.4.1985. However by an order dated 11.5.1992 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application an order to cross efficiency bar in the junior selection grade with effect from 1.5.1990 instead of 1.4.1985 was passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which as noticed hereinbefore by reason of Annexure-3 to the writ application was rejected. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein inter alia it has been contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for gross irregularities committed by him while he was posted at Jamshedpur Division and further in view of the order of punishment imposed upon him, impugned orders are justified. 8. Mr. Sushil Chandra Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this application. The learned counsel firstly submitted that in view of the fact that the charge-sheet issued as against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit relate to the period 1977, in terms of Annexure C thereto, the effect thereof will cease on expiry of three years therefrom, as the petitioner had been inflicted only with a minor punishment. The learned counsel next contended that in any event from a perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it would appear that he has differed with the findings of the Enquiry officer without assigning any reasons therefor and as such the impugned order is vitiated in law. 9. Mr. P.K. Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that the cause of action for initiating a departmental proceeding as against the petitioner arose in the year 1989. 9. Mr. P.K. Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that the cause of action for initiating a departmental proceeding as against the petitioner arose in the year 1989. It is submitted that the petitioner had withheld the audited account as a result of which pecuniary loss was ceased to the respondents and thus it cannot be said that the punishment of censure imposed upon the petitioner ceased to have any effect in the year 1980. It was further submitted that from a perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it will appear that he has assigned reasons differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 10. In view of the order proposed to be passed in relation to second contention raised by Mr. Singh, it is not necessary for us to consider the matter in great details. 11. From a perusal of the charge-sheet as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit it appears that the audit report had been submitted in the year 1977. 12. The petitioner was transferred to Jamshedpur in the year 1983. It is only in the year 1988 one Arun Kumar Verma submitted a note-sheet that although the petitioner was given charge of the said audit report but the same had not been produced by him for a period of more than ten years. 13. The Enquiry Officer in his report upon taking into consideration all the materials on records came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of charges levelled against him inasmuch as the, petitioner was not posted at Jamshedpur at the relevant time and thus the question of his failure to produce the audit report did not arise. He further came to the conclusion that it was not correct to contend that the aforementioned audit report was handed over to the petitioner at the time of handing and taking over of the charge. 14. The disciplinary authority, on the other hand, it appears from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit only proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not explain as to how the file came in his possession and he should have handed over the file immediately to the person concerned. 15. 14. The disciplinary authority, on the other hand, it appears from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit only proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not explain as to how the file came in his possession and he should have handed over the file immediately to the person concerned. 15. The aforementioned charge was not levelled as against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and so it was not necessary for the petitioner to submit any explanation in relation thereto. As noticed hereinbefore the Enquiry Officer inter-alia came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct whatsoever and thus it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to assign sufficient and cogent reasons in the event he intended to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He failed to do so. Further, as noticed hereinbefore, he took into consideration on wholly irrelevant facts and failed to take into consideration the materials brought on records in the departmental proceeding which have duly been considered by the Enquiry Officer. He, as noticed hereinbefore, also took into consideration an additional fact in relation whereto the petitioner was not given any notice. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit cannot be sustained. 17. Consequently it is held that the respondents are bound to pass fresh orders with regard to the crossing of the efficiency bar as also grant of due promotion and/or time bound promotion to him by ignoring the impugned orders. 18. This application is allowed to the aforesaid extent but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Gurusharan Sharma, J. - I agree.