JUDGMENT : Since the pleadings in this case are complete, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3 Petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the office order dated 17.5.2003( annexure 3) issued by the respondents by which five increments of the petitioner has been withheld. Corresponding prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents not to implement the impugned order dated 17.5.2003. 4. The Challenge to the impugned order has been made on the following grounds : (i) that the respondent no.3 has no authority or jurisdiction to withhold the increments of the petitioner merely on the recommendation of the Special Committee, Bihar Legislative Assembly, without initiating a departmental proceeding and without making enquiry whatsoever; (ii) that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of RULE 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and also against the decisions of this Court in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung Vs. State of Bihar [ 2001(3) JCR 155 ] and in the case of Prasan Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Jharkhand [ 2005(4) JCR 343 ( Jhr]. 5. The petitioner is presently working as a Forester and his posted at the West Forest Division , Lohardaga. It appears that some questions were raised on the floor of the House ( Bihar Legislative Assembly) regarding non observance of the reservation policy by the Ranger officer in the matter of engagement of Munshis for collection of Kendu Leaves during the year 1991-92. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation/show cause regarding the non observance of the reservation Policy in the matter of engagement of Munsis for collection of kendu leaves during the year 1991 92. In response, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply stating inter alia that there was no illegality committed by him in making appointment of Munsis and that such appointment was made only after following the reservation policy and the guidelines issued by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Patna. Notwithstanding the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on the recommendation of the Special Committee constituted by the Bihar State legislative Assembly, office order was issued by the PCCF, Bihar Patna vide order No. 51 dated 17.5.2003 whereby five increments of the petitioner have been stopped permanently. 6. Notwithstanding the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on the recommendation of the Special Committee constituted by the Bihar State legislative Assembly, office order was issued by the PCCF, Bihar Patna vide order No. 51 dated 17.5.2003 whereby five increments of the petitioner have been stopped permanently. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that the impugned order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, has been issued on the recommendation of the Special House Committee, Bihar Legislative Assembly in connection with starred question (5) raised on the floor of the House, on 2.7.1991 in connection with appointment of Munsis for collection of Kendu leaves by Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Patna. The committee after examining the report submitted by the Bihar Forest Development Corporation, Bihar, Patna recommended stoppage of five increments of the petitioner and others who were found responsible. 7. From the facts admitted by the respondents, it is apparent that by the impugned order five increments of the petitioner has been stopped only on the basis of the recommendation made by the Special Committee constituted by the Bihar legislative Assembly. It is also admitted that even without issuing notice to show cause, punishment was recommended by the Committee, and in compliance of the recommendation a mere formality was observed by calling for an explanation from the petitioner. Detailed fulfledged enquiry, much less any departmental enquiry, was conducted before passing the order of punishment. Such order of punishment is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and equity and is arbitrary and illegal and cannot be sustained. 8. An identical issue has already been settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Prasan Kumar Nayak (supra). This writ petition therefore succeeds on this score alone. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.5.2003 ( annexure 3) is hereby quashed.