Judgment 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 25.9.1999 passed by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, contained in Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit filed on his behalf which has also been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents imposing major punishment of dismissal from service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that without going into other questions of illegality or irregularity in the matter of holding of departmental enquiry and passing the impugned order imposing major punishment, this Court in the facts and circumstances may consider the question of quantum of punishment awarded against him. It is submitted that the charge against the petitioner was of disobedience of the order of his transfer dated 24.4.1992, contained in Annexure-4, from the alleged place of his posting at Sahebganj (Muzaffarpur) to Market Committee, Barahat and also of his unauthorised absence from duty on account of non-compliance of the said order of transfer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner while working as Market Supervisor at Market Committee, Sahebganj in the district of Muzaffarpur was transferred vide Bihar Agricultural Marketing Boards letter no. 9353 dated 24.12.1991 and in pursuance thereto the Market Committee, Sahebganj vide its resolution no. 5 relieved the petitioner from the afternoon of 31.3.1992 for joining in the Boards headquarters vide office order dated 31.3.1992 contained in Annexure-2. According to the case of the petitioner, he submitted his joining on 9.4.1992 in the Boards head-quarters, but the Secretary vide its order dated 24.4.1992, contained in Annexure-4 purported to have transferred the petitioner from Market Committee, Sahebganj (Muzaffarpur) to the Market Committee, Barahat without any authority of law. Petitioner represented the authority concerned about the said irregularity and requested to pay his salary, but the respondents did not pay any heed, ultimately he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1191 of 1997 in this Court seeking direction for payment of salary. The said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 26.8.1997, contained in Annexure-9. From the said order, it appears that according to the petitioners case, he was not relieved for joining to the said post, and he made several representations praying for being relieved. The said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 26.8.1997, contained in Annexure-9. From the said order, it appears that according to the petitioners case, he was not relieved for joining to the said post, and he made several representations praying for being relieved. Further, it appears that a show cause was asked for from the petitioner to which he submitted his reply, but the Respondents were not satisfied and framed the said charges against him and served the same upon him on 3.5.1997. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the disciplinary authority to dispose of the proceeding by 30th November, 1997. It appears that on the submission made on behalf of the Respondent-authority that the petitioner was not cooperating, this Court gave liberty to the Respondent- authority to proceed ex parte against the petitioner, if he does not cooperate. With respect to prayer for payment of salary for the intervening period, this Court directed that the same will depend upon the decision of the disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 26.8.1998, contained in Annexure-1, against which he again filed writ application before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8458 of 1998. This Court having found irregularity in passing the said order of dismissal disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondent Board to supply copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner through his learned counsel and the petitioner was required to file second show cause within two weeks, and the Managing Director was directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks of the receipt of the second show cause, whereafter the impugned order has been passed after giving second show cause notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge against the petitioner itself was baseless and founded on the order passed by the Secretary contrary to the earlier order of the Board, contained in letter no. 9353 dated 24.12.1991 in pursuance to which the petitioner had already been relieved from Sahebganj (Muzaffarpur) and joined the Boards headquarters. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge against the petitioner itself was baseless and founded on the order passed by the Secretary contrary to the earlier order of the Board, contained in letter no. 9353 dated 24.12.1991 in pursuance to which the petitioner had already been relieved from Sahebganj (Muzaffarpur) and joined the Boards headquarters. As such, according to him the order of the Secretary, contained in Annexure-4 was completely misconceived one as by virtue of the said order the petitioner was sought to be transferred from Market Committee, Sahebganj (Muzaffarpur), from where he had already been relieved long before the said order was issued and he had already joined the Boards headquarters and the petitioner, thus, sought clarification, but no clarification was issued by the Respondents which resulted in that he continued in the Boards headquarters. 4. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Board, on the other hand, has submitted that the order, contained in Annexure- 4, in fact, has been passed by the Managing Director and not by the Secretary as alleged on behalf of the petitioner. He further submitted that joining of the petitioner was never accepted in the Board in pursuance to Annexure-2 and, as such, the order contained in Annexure-4 was quite valid and there was no occasion for any confusion. It is, thus, submitted by him that absence of the petitioner from the place of his posting vide Annexure-4 was wholly unauthorised and the award of punishment was, thus, justified. 5. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of Mr. Yadav. Mr. Yadav, learned counsei for the Board has fairly accepted that there is no dispute with respect to the order dated 31.3.1992, contained in Annexure-2, whereby in pursuance to the Boards letter no. 9353 dated 24.12.1991 and the resolution of the Market Committee, Sahebganj, the petitioner has been relieved from Sahebganj from the afternoon of 31.3.1992, itself. It is also not disputed that the petitioner joined the Boards headquarter on 9.4.1992. It is not the case of the Respondents that any order was issued to him refusing acceptance of his joining in the Boards headquarters. It is also not the case of the Respondents that any clarification was sent to the petitioner in response to his request. 6. Mr. It is not the case of the Respondents that any order was issued to him refusing acceptance of his joining in the Boards headquarters. It is also not the case of the Respondents that any clarification was sent to the petitioner in response to his request. 6. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Board, however, while refering to the order dated 28.1.1998 (Annexure-11) submitted that the petitioner was neither given nor he ever held any substantive post/responsibility in the Board, hence there was no need to relieve him from the Board. This Court is unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel. When admittedly the Board never issued any order refusing to accept the joining of the petitioner in the Boards headquarters in pursuance to Annexure-2 nor even responded to his request seeking clarification then he cannot be held solely responsible for not complying with the order of his transfer, contained in Annexure-4. It is admitted that the petitioner pursuant to Boards letter no. 9353 dated 24.12.1991 read with resolution no. 5 of the Market Committee, Sahebganj was relieved from Sahebganj on 31.3.1992 to join Boards headquarters and he joined Boards headquarters then unless he would have been relieved by the Board, in my opinion, he could not have complied the order, contained in Annexure-4 on account of which the disciplinary action was initiated against him. However, having regard to the said facts, this Court finds that the petitioner may not be entitled to claim for payment of salary of his absence period but the Respondent Board also cannot be held to be justified in holding him guilty warranting major punishment of dismissal from service. Thus, this Court finds that the awarding of major punishment of dismissal against him is not commensurate with gravity of charge. In my opinion denial of salary for his absence period Would suffice in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with direction to the Managing Director of the Board to reconsider his case on the quantum of punishment afresh and dispose it of by a reasoned order within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.