JAYANANDAN SINGH, J.:- Petitioner in this case, an Amin in the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar at the relevant time, has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 27.9.2004 passed by Respondent No.3, Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Annexure-1), whereby and whereunder, punishment of stoppage of 100% pension and withholding of any payment except subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension has been inflicted upon him. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow the payment of his entire retiral dues and pension with interest at market rate and other admissible amount withheld by them. 2. It appears that for charges of having created forged documents and papers for the purposes of land acquisition while petitioner was posted as Amin in the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Medium Irrigation Project at Deoghar, a vigilance case was instituted against him and others, namely, Vigilance Case No. 004/90. The case was investigated into and chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. As a consequence, by order dated 24.1.1996 (Annexure-2), petitioner was put under suspension till the disposal of the criminal case. Later on, it was decided to initiate a departmental proceeding also against the petitioner and hence charges were served upon the petitioner (Annexure-3), asking him to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against and punished for the same. 3. Petitioner submitted his show cause denying the charges. In his show cause, he specifically claimed that the concerned documents and papers were not at all prepared by him. 4. Inquiry Officer was appointed in the proceeding and enquiry proceeded in which petitioner participated. On conclusion of the enquiry, report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 27.9.2001 (Annexure-4), in which the inquiry officer found that the petitioner had only prepared the records of land already acquired on the basis of rate and had not made any wrong entry. As such he concluded that the show cause of the petitioner was fit to be accepted. Although charges against the petitioner were not found to have been established, for quite sometime, no order was passed by the disciplinary authority revoking the suspension of the petitioner and ordering his posting and payment of salary. As such petitioner moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 11434 of 2002, alongwith one Babban Rai. Although charges against the petitioner were not found to have been established, for quite sometime, no order was passed by the disciplinary authority revoking the suspension of the petitioner and ordering his posting and payment of salary. As such petitioner moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 11434 of 2002, alongwith one Babban Rai. In view of the inquiry report having been submitted almost a year back, this Court disposed of the said writ application by order dated 22.11.2001, (Annexure-5), with a direction to the respondent-Director to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law latest within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 5. On receipt of the orders of this Court, as aforesaid, the successor respondent-Director, by letter dated 3.1.2003, directed one Mahadeo Dhan, the Spcial Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Bhagalpur to make an enquiry in the matter and submit his report. The said Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 28.1.2003, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. After examination of different documents and papers, suspicion of connivance of the petitioner in the matter was expressed. Accordingly a second show cause notice dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure-7) was given to the petitioner. In the said second show cause notice, it was mentioned that the report of the inquiry officer was examined at the departmental level and on the basis of the records the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved and hence decision had been taken to dismiss the petitioner from service. Enclosing a copy of the said report of the said Sri Mahadeo Dhan, petitioner was asked to show cause within thirty days. 6. Petitioner replied to the said notice through his advocate on 26.7.2003 (Annexure-7/1). As nothing was communicated to the petitioner, he filed M.J.C. No. 439 of 2003 for non-compliance of order passed in earlier writ application. After protracted proceeding, the said contempt application was disposed of by order dated 29.9.2004, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 27.9.2004, as produced in the contempt matter. 7. After protracted proceeding, the said contempt application was disposed of by order dated 29.9.2004, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 27.9.2004, as produced in the contempt matter. 7. Before passing of the final order dated 27.9.2004 (impugned herein), an order was passed by the Water Resources Department of the State of Jharkhand converting the proceeding against the petitioner one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, (Annexure-10) to the writ application) as petitioner had superannuated from active service on 30.4.2003. Petitioner had also filed a writ application, namely C.W.J.C. No. 3633 of 2004 for post-retirement benefits which was disposed of by a common order dated 24.3.2004 (Annexure-9). 8. In the background of the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, after his retirement, prior to the conversion of the proceeding into one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, which the respondents were no longer authorised to issue as the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 ceased to be operative after superannuation of the petitioner. He further submitted that for continuation of the proceeding after superannuation of the petitioner a specific order converting the proceeding into one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was necessary before taking any further step in the proceeding. That having not been done before issue of the second show cause notice, the notice was bad and consequently the impugned order of punishment was also bad. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the impugned order of punishment was bad on account of violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the inquiry officer, after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, had submitted his report in which he did not find the charges against the petitioner proved and hence recommended for acceptance of his show cause. However, the disciplinary authority got another enquiry conducted by another Special Land Acquisition Officer, namely, Mahadeo Dhan, behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of the same, issued second show cause notice to him. However, the disciplinary authority got another enquiry conducted by another Special Land Acquisition Officer, namely, Mahadeo Dhan, behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of the same, issued second show cause notice to him. Learned Counsel submitted that although copy of the report of the said Mahadeo Dhan was also attached with the second show cause notice, but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to consider and explain the records and documents taken into account by the said Mahadeo Dhan for casting suspicion upon the petitioner of having made interpolation in the same. Learned Counsel further submitted that the records and documents taken into account by the said Mahadeo Dhan were never produced in the enquiry for perusal of the petitioner and as such the materials considered by the said Mahadeo Dhan were altogether new materials which were taken into account behind the back of the petitioner for submitting report against the petitioner on the basis of which second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He finally submitted that since the report of Mahadeo Dhan was made the basis for issuance of second show cause notice and ultimately of the impugned order of punishment as aforesaid, the same were bad in law, in utter violation of principles of natural justice and fit to be quashed. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case on behalf of respondents. In the said counter affidavit, besides narrating the facts of the case, it has been averred that the petitioner has not replied to the second show cause notice; he has been paid all others retiral dues except those withheld by the impugned order; the disciplinary authority has full power to conduct and get fresh enquiry conducted against any proceeded personnel in case of any shortcomings in the enquiry process and to reach at final judicious order. Learned Counsel for the respondents, relying upon the counter affidavit, further submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. as reported in 2000(1) PLJR 665 (FB), there was no legal requirement of any specific order for conversion of the pending departmental proceeding into one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. The State of Bihar & Ors. as reported in 2000(1) PLJR 665 (FB), there was no legal requirement of any specific order for conversion of the pending departmental proceeding into one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. After retirement of a Government servant against whom a proceeding is pending from before, the same can continue within the scope and parameters of Rule 43(b). Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the legal proposition underlying the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, but he defended the action of the disciplinary authority of getting another enquiry made by another officer, namely, Mahadeo Ohan as perfectly legal and valid and within the powers of the disciplinary authority and submitted that, on facts, there was no violation of principles of natural justice as the copy of report of said Mahadeo Dhan was also made available to the petitioner with the second show cause notice. 11. On behalf of petitioner a supplementary affidavit was filed giving details of the dues of the petitioner with the respondents. A reply of counter affidavit was also filed in which, besides reiterating the facts, stand of the respondents taken in the counter affidavit has been challenged. However, in view of reliance placed by the respondents on the above referred Full Bench decision of this court, learned counsel for the petitioner gave up his first submission with regard to legal requirement of a specific order of conversion of a pending proceeding into one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules upon superannuation of a Government servant. However, after close of the arguments in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a list of following citations in support of his second submission :- 1. 1992(2) PLJR 26 (Ganesh Pd. Singh Vs. State & Ors.) 2. 2000(3) PLJR 698 (Anant Pandey Vs. BSEB & Ors.) 3. 2000(4) PLJR 454 (Lakhandeo Singh Vs. BSEB & Ors.) 4. 2000(4) PLJR 411 (Braj Kishore Singh Vs. State & Ors.) 5. 2000(4) PLJR 216 (Jitendra Kumar Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.) 6. 2001(1) PLJR 666 (Dr. Umesh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of Ors.) 7. 2001(4) PLJR 359 (Arjun Sinha Vs. State & Ors.) 8. 2001(2) PLJR 522 (DB) (BSEB Vs. Braj Kishore Singh) 9. 2004(1) PLJR 31 (DB) (Saroj Kumari Vs. State & Ors.) 10. 2004(1) PLJR 227 (Uday Shankar Verma Vs. SBI & Ors.) 11. 2001(1) PLJR 666 (Dr. Umesh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of Ors.) 7. 2001(4) PLJR 359 (Arjun Sinha Vs. State & Ors.) 8. 2001(2) PLJR 522 (DB) (BSEB Vs. Braj Kishore Singh) 9. 2004(1) PLJR 31 (DB) (Saroj Kumari Vs. State & Ors.) 10. 2004(1) PLJR 227 (Uday Shankar Verma Vs. SBI & Ors.) 11. 2004(1) PLJR 555 (Abdul Halim Vs. State & Ors.) 12. AIR 1971 SC 1447 (K.R. Deb Vs. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong) 12. I have considered the above cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the cases relate to departmental proceeding. In the case at serial no.6, after complete exoneration in the first proceeding, respondents sought to hold a second proceeding on the self-same charges which was quashed by this court. In the case at serial no. 1 entire proceeding was quashed by this Court on the ground of shockingly abnormal delay and other grounds. However, issue of second show cause with grounds of difference was not an issue in the case. In the case at serial no. 12 repeated enquiry was held as not contemplated under rule 15 of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957. In all other cases judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra [ 1998 (7) SCC 84 ] was referred to/relied on for holding the second show cause and order of punishment bad. In the case of Anant Pandey (supra), a clear distinction has been made between reasons to be given by the disciplinary authority for disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and his own findings given by the disciplinary authority in respect of the charges levelled against the delinquent. This court held that giving own findings in respect of the charges levelled against the delinquent does not conform to the requirements of law and the disciplinary authority is required to give reasons for disagreemnt with the findings of the inquiry officer while issuing a second show cause notice while differing with the report of the inquiry officer exonerating the delinquent which the disciplinary authority had not done in the case. However, in all the cases, after noticing/relying on the principle of law settled in the matter, the court applied the same in the facts of the respective cases to hold the respective second show cause notices and the resultant punishment orders as bad. 13. However, in all the cases, after noticing/relying on the principle of law settled in the matter, the court applied the same in the facts of the respective cases to hold the respective second show cause notices and the resultant punishment orders as bad. 13. Now the facts of the present case has to be examined in the light of the settled proposition of law flowing from Kunj Behari Mishra's case and followed by this Court in several subsequent judgments. From facts of the case as noticed above, it is clear that in the departmental enquiry charges as framed against the petitioner were not found established and hence the inquiry officer recommended for acceptance of show cause of the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Bhagalpur, namely, Mahadeo Dhan, to make an enquiry and submit his report. He submitted a report, a copy whereof is annexed as annexure-6 to the writ application. From annexure-6 it appears that the said Mahadeo Dhan examined a number of documents and records and expressed his suspicion against the petitioner of having connived in the matter. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice based on the findings of said Mahadeo Dhan and enclosing a copy of his report. Ultimately, impugned order of punishment was passed against the petitioner (Annexure-1). It is apparent that the second enquiry conducted by the said officer, Mahadeo Dhan was behind the back of the petitioner. No information was given to him of the same and he was not called upon to participate and present his case before the said officer. The documents and records examined by the said officer, and relied upon for expressing suspicion against the petitioner of connivance, were never made available to the petitioner for his examination. Petitioner was never given an opportunity to defend himself and furnish his explanation with regard to the documents and records relied upon by the said officer for submitting a report against the petitioner. Although a copy of the report was enclosed with the second show cause, but the same was not enough as the report only contained the findings of the inquiry officer relying on certain documents and records. Although a copy of the report was enclosed with the second show cause, but the same was not enough as the report only contained the findings of the inquiry officer relying on certain documents and records. There was no opportunity available to the petitioner to controvert the findings by adverting to the documents and records relied upon for the same and present his explanation with regard to the said documents and records for consideration by the disciplinary authority. On receipt of the report of the enquiry proceeding, recommending for acceptance of the show cause of the petitioner, either the disciplinary authority could accept the recommendation and exonerate the petitioner, or it was open to him to differ with the report, assign reasons for disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, as pointed out in the case of Anant Pandey (supra), and issue a second show cause to the petitioner with the said reasons giving opportunity to him to represent in the matter, or he could order for fresh enquiry in the matter. But it was not open to the disciplinary authority to get an internal enquiry made behind the back of the petitioner and issue notice of proposed punishment to the petitioner on its basis. 14. Thus it is apparent that the proceeding was concluded and order of punishment of petitioner was issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order (Annexure-1) is bad in law and is fit to be quashed. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed. 15. Petitioner, in this case has confined his challenge to the order of punishment (Annexure-1). Hence, while quashing the impugned order of punishment (Annexure-1), liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh, if it so decides, from the stage of submission of inquiry report and pass appropriate orders in strict compliance of principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. 16. In the result, the writ application is allowed with the observations and directions as above. There shall be no orders as to costs.