ORAL ORDER I A No. 6139 of 2013 Though served, the respondent no.1 has not entered appearance. Delay of 214 days occurred in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 2. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1062 of 2013 3. This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent-State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated 7th November 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 13071 of 2012. 4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner, then Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, on 4th April 2008, in respect of the alleged misconduct for making illegal recovery of Rs.1600/- from each fair price shop dealer in the guise of inspection of stocks, distribution etc. and for remaining absent without leave at the time of local election. The enquiry was entrusted to the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after holding due enquiry opined that both the charges of misconduct were proved against the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, did not agree that the charge of making illegal recovery was proved. The only charge that was held proved against the petitioner was that of remaining absent from duty without leave. For the said guilt proved against the petitioner, under order dated 29th June 2012, the petitioner was visited with punishment of ‘Censure’. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 13071 of 2012. The order of punishment of ‘Censure’ was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in consonance with Rule 17(23) and Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. According to the petitioner, the enquiry held by the enquiry officer was defective inasmuch as the presenting Officer did not examine any witness in support of the charges nor the petitioner was allowed to examine any witness in his defence. Petition was contested by the State Government. 6. The learned Single Judge has held that for awarding minor punishment of ‘Censure’ the State Government ought not to have relied upon the report of the enquiry officer submitted after due enquiry for major punishment. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment. Petition was contested by the State Government. 6. The learned Single Judge has held that for awarding minor punishment of ‘Censure’ the State Government ought not to have relied upon the report of the enquiry officer submitted after due enquiry for major punishment. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment. The disciplinary authority has been granted liberty “to consider the show cause as well as reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner de hors the enquiry report and may pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.” Therefore, this Appeal by the respondent-State of Bihar. 7. We are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that the enquiry officer having held enquiry for major punishment, the report of the enquiry officer could not have been resorted to for awarding minor punishment. Once a comprehensive disciplinary proceeding is held with a view to imposing major punishment, the disciplinary authority is at liberty to impose any punishment - major or minor, commensurate to the gravity of the guilt proved against the delinquent. A separate enquiry for awarding minor punishment is then not warranted. As to the examination of witnesses, on perusal of the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner it is evident that the disciplinary authority did not propose to examine any witness in support of the charges. Similarly, it is not the case of the petitioner that he wanted to examine a witness in his defence and such witness was not allowed to be examined. There may be cases where the imputation of charges made against the delinquent are proved by documentary evidence alone and no oral evidence may be required. There is no compulsion upon the disciplinary authority to lead oral evidence to prove the imputation of charges. 8. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has manifestly erred in holding that the disciplinary authority ought not to have relied upon the report of the enquiry officer and that he ought to have decided the matter without resorting to the report of the enquiry officer. Such a procedure is not envisaged by the aforesaid Rules of 2005. 9. In any view of the matter, the factum that the petitioner had remained absent without leave, is a matter of record and is irrefutable. Such a procedure is not envisaged by the aforesaid Rules of 2005. 9. In any view of the matter, the factum that the petitioner had remained absent without leave, is a matter of record and is irrefutable. For such misconduct, if the disciplinary authority has imposed the minimal punishment of ‘Censure’, this Court exercising power of judicial review shall not interfere in such trivial matters. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 7th November 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 13071 of 2012 is set aside. CWJC No. 13071 of 2012 is dismissed. 11. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.