JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the decision taken and communicated vide Resolution dated 10.09.2011, by which, the punishment of censure, withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and no promotion for three years has been imposed upon the petitioner and further for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the rank of ADM/Deputy Secretary. 2. The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was selected in Bihar Administrative Services Cadre and while continuing as such a memo of charge in Form 'K' vide letter dated 24.12.2007, which is alleged to be communicated to the petitioner vide forwarding letter dated 19.11.2008, was served upon the petitioner for committing irregularities in the registration of vehicles without proper verification of owners and without verifying the authenticity of NOC submitted by the applicants. Pursuant thereto, in the departmental proceeding, enquiry officer conducted the enquiry who submitted its enquiry report basing on which the impugned order 10.09.2011 has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the entire departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularities as neither enquiry report has been given to the petitioner nor second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order, hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Others as reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . On merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision for verifying the address of each and every owner of the vehicle before registration or reregistration, in absence of any doubt, therefore, no misconduct is made out against the petitioner. Further, it is not possible to verify the whereabouts of each and every vehicle owner, who applies for registration of certificate, therefore, on the basis of declaration made by vehicle owner, the registration/re-registration is being done. Learned counsel for the petitioner further strenuously urged that out of the four charges levelled against the petitioner none of the charges has been proved though charge no. 2 has been established partially that too on the basis of presumption. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further strenuously urged that out of the four charges levelled against the petitioner none of the charges has been proved though charge no. 2 has been established partially that too on the basis of presumption. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the charge of committing irregularities in registration of vehicle show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner, however, the petitioner was absent from office, hence, the show cause letter could not be delivered to him personally and after waiting for a considerable period for the response of the petitioner, the Government of Jharkhand issued resolution dated 19.11.2008 whereby departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and basing on the proved charges, impugned punishment has been imposed which is commensurate with the proved charges. 5. On perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as admittedly neither show cause was served personally to the petitioner nor enquiry report as well as reasoning for differing with the findings over the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner. Further from perusal of the enquiry report, it is evident that none of the charges has been proved except charges no. 2, which is said to be partially proved on the basis of presumption. In such a situation, it is the duty of the disciplinary to record finding for differing with the enquiry report so as to impose punishment, but, admittedly, in the case at hand, no such procedure has been adopted by the disciplinary authority rendering the impugned order vulnerable for judicial review. 6. Furthermore, it is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to award punishment as per the proved charges and the delinquency but looking at the factual position in the case at hand, it appears that gross prejudice has been caused in awarding the punishment and only on the basis of one partially proved charge i.e. charge no. 2, without assigning any reason for differing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment, which is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. 2, without assigning any reason for differing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment, which is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above-narrated facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the decision taken and communicated vide Resolution dated 10.09.2011, by which, the punishment of censure, withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and no promotion for three years has been imposed upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the respondents-authorities are at liberty to consider the case of promotion of petitioner in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.