JUDGEMENT 1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 108 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. 3. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Reg: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1456 of 2010: 4. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is heard and decided today. 5. This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 18375 of 2009. The respondent before us is the writ petitioner. 6. The respondent writ petitioner was, while serving as Section Officer in the Department of Excise and Prohibition under the Government of Bihar, charged for the acts of commission and omission amounting to misconduct in respect of delaying certain files. After holding due inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, under his report dated 6th August, 2008, opined that out of five charges levelled against the delinquent, three were proved. In respect of the other two charges, the delinquent was given the benefit of doubt. On receipt of the inquiry report, on 6th August, 2008 the State Government issued a notice calling upon the delinquent to reply to the report of the Inquiry Officer and to show cause why he should not be punished. The said notice was replied to by. the delinquent on 21st August, 2008. On receipt of the reply, by order dated 2nd December, 2008 made by the State Government, the delinquent was visited with the punishment of reduction in rank and on reduction to the post of Assistant, the delinquent was ordered to be placed at the minimum in the pay scale. Upon representation received from the delinquent, by impugned order dated 17th November, 2009, the aforesaid punishment was reduced, inter alia, to reduction in rank of Assistant for three years with effect from 2nd December, 2008. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No.18375 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2010, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition on the sole ground that the disciplinary authority did not record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. By the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2010, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition on the sole ground that the disciplinary authority did not record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishment dated 17th November, 2009. It is further observed that the proceedings would commence afresh from the stage of submission of the inquiry report. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 9. Learned Advocate General Mr. P.K. Shahi appears for the appellant. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the State Government did not disagree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Though the delinquent was charged for five counts of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer recorded the finding of guilt in respect of three counts. On two of the counts, the Inquiry Officer gave the benefit of doubt to the delinquent. The said finding was accepted by the State Government in toto. Meaning thereby that the delinquent was called upon to explain the finding of guilt recorded against him. The punishment imposed upon the delinquent was also in respect of and to the extent the guilt was proved against him. The State Government did not disagree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, and that there was no occasion for the State Government to record its disagreement. Nor the State Government is required to hold the enquiry from the stage of submission of enquiry report as directed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Subodh Chandra Jha appears for the respondent delinquent. He has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He has also assailed the order of punishment on several other grounds. 11. As the learned Single Judge has not considered the other grounds of challenge, we do not deal with the same. On perusal of the show cause notice dated 6th August, 2008, it is apparent that the State Government did not disagree with any of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. That means that the delinquent was called upon to explain only those of the charges for which he was found guilty and the punishment was also imposed for and to the extent the guilt was proved against the delinquent. That means that the delinquent was called upon to explain only those of the charges for which he was found guilty and the punishment was also imposed for and to the extent the guilt was proved against the delinquent. In absence of disagreement by the disciplinary authority, the question of recording of reasons for disagreement did not arise. 12. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice that the State Government did not disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. 13. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 18375 of 2009 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 18375 of 2009 is remitted to the learned Single Judge for hearing and decision on the other grounds of challenge to the impugned order of punishment. 14. Interlocutory Application No. 8288 of 2010 stands disposed of. 15. The parties will bear their own cost.