Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.8.98 and 10.3.99 by which he has been awarded punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and also the order of debarment of promotion for five years and for recovery of Rs. 28,155 from his salary. This order of punishment has been imposed upon him by Annexures-1 and 2. 2. Petitioners case is that while he was functioning as Assistant Executive Engineer in Kanti Thermal Power Station, Muzaffarpur, on the allegation for theft of Transformer a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. 3. After a regular departmental proceeding enquiry, report was submitted in which the Enquiring Officer after a detailed enquiry found that both charges against the petitioner have not been substantiated but the departmental authorities on the basis of such enquiry report issued a show cause notice dated 4.7.97 asking the petitioner to show cause why certain punishment should not be imposed upon him. 4. The said show cause notice is Annexure-9 to this writ petition. Even though alongwith the said show cause notice the enquiry report has been enclosed but in the show cause notice there is no whisper about nature of findings by the Enquiring Officer. In the show cause it is recited that the Enquiring Officer conducted the proceedings and submitted his report. In fact, the findings have been given in favour of the petitioner. Reading the said show cause notice, one is left in the dark whether the authority has agreed or differed with the findings since there is no whisper about the nature of the findings in the show cause notice. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without recording any disagreement with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and far less to talk of giving any reason for such disagreement, the said show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner asking him to give reply to the proposed penalty to be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. This stand of the petitioner is that such a show cause notice is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Board has urged that the petitioner has understood the purport of the show cause notice and he has given his reply to the same and considering the said reply the impugned order has been passed. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Board has urged that the petitioner has understood the purport of the show cause notice and he has given his reply to the same and considering the said reply the impugned order has been passed. He further urged that in any event the petitioner has filed a detailed reply and considering all these facts the disciplinary authority has passed the final order. The learned Counsel further asserted that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the said final order and prayed that the Court may issue necessary direction for disposal of the appeal. 7. This Court is unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 7-A. It is obviously true that the findings of an Enquiring Officer are not binding on the Disciplinary Authority. It cannot be denied that the enquiry report is a very relevant material in any departmental proceedings against a delinquent. The disciplinary authority has either to accept it or he may differ with it for some reasons recorded and he may direct another enquiry to be initiated. But the impugned second show cause notice which has been issued as Annexure 9 must show that the Disciplinary Authority has applied his mind to the enquiry report. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank V/s. Kunj Bihari Misra , this question cropped up for consideration. The Supreme Court after considering various decisions on the point, applied the principle of he Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Pandit . The learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that though the principles in Bimal Kumar Pandits case were arrived in the context of Article 311(2), but those principles shall also apply in a departmental proceeding of the Bank. On the same reasoning, the ration in Bimal Kumar Pandit (supra), can be applied to the present disciplinary proceedings of the Board. Both the Board and the Banks are State within the meaning of the Article 12. In paragraph 14 of the Punjab National Banks case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court applied the ratio in Pandits case. On the same reasoning, the ration in Bimal Kumar Pandit (supra), can be applied to the present disciplinary proceedings of the Board. Both the Board and the Banks are State within the meaning of the Article 12. In paragraph 14 of the Punjab National Banks case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court applied the ratio in Pandits case. In paragraph 15 it has been held thus: In such a case, it would obviously be necessary that the dismissing authority should expressly state that it differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report and then indicate the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the Delinquent Officer. Without such an express statement in the notice, it mould be impossible to issue the notice at all (underlined to emphasise) But in the instant case also the disciplinary authority of the Board has not followed that. Therefore, this infirmity goes to the root of the matter and cannot be over-looked by this Court. Apart from that the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Banks case has also approved the ratio of the Supreme Courts decision in Ram Kishans case. In paragraph 14 it has been held: 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 reasons given in the enquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the enquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the enquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent Officer and would result in injustice to him. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent Officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect (emphasis is mine) In view of the aforesaid, the second show cause notice (Annexure-9) issued by the respondent Board in incurably defective. That defect cannot be cured even by a reasoned final order. 8. Learned Counsel for the Board also placed reliance on an unreported judgment dated 3.10.97 in the case of Krishna Deo Sharma V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board in C.W.J.C. No. 6701/94, in order to contend that where a detailed representation has been made by the delinquent against second show cause notice that will show that he has understood the purport of it, and he has not suffered any prejudice and unless prejudice is suffered no interference by a writ Court is warranted. But there is a very basic factual difference between that case and the present one. In that case, the second show cause notice expressly states that the enquiry report in not acceptable and reasons were also recorded why it was not so. Is that context, the Court examined the enquiry report and found that the stand of the disciplinary in differing with the enquiry report is tenable. But the facts in this case, as noted above, are totally different. So the unreported judgment cannot be applied here. 9. The last point which has been urged by the respondents Counsel is that since the appeal has been filed in this case this writ application should not be entertained. In answering such objection this Court is of the opinion that since in the instant case the stand of the respondent Board in issuing said show cause notice is violative of the basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action, this Court can entertain this writ application even if there is no exhaustion of the statutory remedy. Since the petition is maintainable on the aforesaid ground the mere fact the petitioner has filed an appeal would not deprive him of the remedy which is available to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petition is maintainable on the aforesaid ground the mere fact the petitioner has filed an appeal would not deprive him of the remedy which is available to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Mehmudul Hasan V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 953 , paragraph 18. Since after quashing of the original order the matter is remitted to the authority concerned for fresh consideration no order need be passed on the appeal by the appellate authority. 10. For the reasons aforesaid this Court holds that the Board may issue a fresh show cause notice stating its agreement or disagreement with the Enquiry Officers report. In case of disagreement they must record reasons. The same may be issued by the Board within a period of two months from the date of service of this order upon respondent No. 3. If a fresh show cause notice is issued the petitioner will reply within a month thereafter and the Respondent Board may pass final order within a month thereafter. It is, however, made clear that if after service of second show cause notice the petitioner does not give any reply within a month in that case the Respondent Board need not wait and is at liberty to pass the final order. 11. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Annexures 1 and 2 are quashed.