RAKESH KUMAR, J.:–Heard Sri Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to Principal Addl. Advocate General no.1. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Memo no.63 dated 25.03.2009 issued under the signature of the Commercial Taxes Commissioner-cum- Principal Secretary, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). By the said order, in a regular departmental proceeding, the petitioner was imposed punishments i.e. (i) adverse remarks entry in the ACR of the petitioner of the year 2007-08 .(ii) withholding of three annual increments with non-cumulative effect and (iii) it was directed that save and except subsistence allowance, during his suspension period, the petitioner was not entitled to get anything. 3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was a member of Bihar Financial Service and at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kishanganj. Firstly on an allegation that he was found absent from the office without permission, a letter was issued to the petitioner contained in Memo No.3841 dated 27.08.2007 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 24 hours, which was replied by the petitioner vide Memo No.722 dated 28.08.2007 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Subsequently by government Notification contained in Memo No.436 dated 10.12.2007, the petitioner was put under suspension with intimation regarding initiation of departmental proceeding. Subsequently vide Government Resolution dated 31.12.2007, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Memo of Charge was served asking him to file his written reply, which was replied by the petitioner vide Annexure-21 to the writ petition. In the show cause reply, the petitioner gave his explanation regarding the charges. 4. It is case of the petitioner that even after suspension, when the petitioner was not given subsistence allowance, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No. 1820 of 2008. By order dated 23.06.2008, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to pay subsistence allowance and to ensure completion of the departmental proceedings within specified time. In the event of non-completion of departmental proceeding within time fixed by this court, it was observed that the suspension of the petitioner shall be revoked. 5. By order dated 23.06.2008, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to pay subsistence allowance and to ensure completion of the departmental proceedings within specified time. In the event of non-completion of departmental proceeding within time fixed by this court, it was observed that the suspension of the petitioner shall be revoked. 5. It has been argued that in the departmental proceeding from the department not even single witness was examined and a report was submitted by the departmental Enquiry Commissioner. After receipt of the enquiry report, the order impugned was passed, whereby punishment, as indicated herein above, was imposed against the petitioner. 6. It was submitted by Sri Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the punishment order, the petitioner was not provided any second show cause notice nor enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner. As such, the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside in view of violation of Rule-18(3) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,2005 ( hereinafter referred to as “Bihar CCA Rules,2005”). It has also been argued that once a regular departmental proceeding was initiated, in that event taking shelter of minor punishment imposed against the petitioner, Respondents would not at all get the aid of Rule -18 of Bihar CCA Rules,2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the charges i.e. Annexure-2 to the writ petition and submits that on bare perusal of the charges, it is evident that all the three charges were completely vague. He submits regarding first charge i.e. absence of the petitioner during office time is concerned, after issuance of show cause notice dated 27.08.2007( Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the petitioner had given satisfactory reply as contained in Memo No.722 dated 28.08.2007 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. He submits that in view of explanation given by the petitioner vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition, there was no reason to incorporate the same charge in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. So far charge relating to non-achievement of revenue collection is concerned, he submits that save and except referring to the period, nothing has been indicated as to what was the non-achievement of collection of revenue and only vague charge has been framed. Similarly, 3rd charge was also vague. So far charge relating to non-achievement of revenue collection is concerned, he submits that save and except referring to the period, nothing has been indicated as to what was the non-achievement of collection of revenue and only vague charge has been framed. Similarly, 3rd charge was also vague. The charge only indicates that the petitioner was victimizing, torturing and issuing of wrong notice for penalty against the Businessmen. In the charge nothing has been indicated that how and who was threatened by the petitioner. He submits that entire proceeding is liable to be set aside on the ground that charges were itself not specific rather all the charges were vague. In sum and substance, it has been argued that once a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, the Respondents were obliged not to deviate from the procedure prescribed under Rule-18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. He further submits that the law has already been settled on the points that in a departmental proceeding without supply of enquiry report, no punishment order can be passed and if such punishment order is passed, the order itself is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement made in paragraph-16 of the writ petition to show that the enquiry report was never communicated to the petitioner. Similarly, for substantiating the aforesaid points, he has referred to the statements made in paragraph- 3(i) and 3(ii) of reply filed by the petitioner on 17th April,2017. On the aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order. 7. Learned AC to Principal Addl. Advocate General no.1 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in the departmental proceeding, full opportunity was given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner himself was trying to delay the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. He further submits that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner is not correct. In this context, he has referred to paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit. He has specifically referred to the statement made in paragraph-5 to the counter affidavit to the extent that the enquiry Commissioner had given full opportunity to the petitioner and the Enquiry Commissioner had furnished an enquiry report dated 03.11.2008. In this context, he has referred to paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit. He has specifically referred to the statement made in paragraph-5 to the counter affidavit to the extent that the enquiry Commissioner had given full opportunity to the petitioner and the Enquiry Commissioner had furnished an enquiry report dated 03.11.2008. He further relying on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported 2000(4) PLJR 467 ; Rabindra Kumar Sinha Vs. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, submits that in case of minor punishment there is no necessity to give second show cause notice. Since in the present case, minor punishment was imposed, there was no reason to either provide enquiry report or second show cause notice. On the aforesaid ground, he has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Before proceeding further, the Court proposes to incorporate all the three charges, for which the petitioner was proceeded departmentally: ^^Ái= ¼d½ inkfèkdkjh dk uke%& Jh y{eh ukjk;.k Álkn inuke%& okf.kT;&dj mik;qDr ¼fuyafcr½ osrueku%& vkjksi 1- okf.kT;&dj mik;qDr] ÁHkkjh] fd'kuxat vapy] fd'kuxat ds inLFkkiu dky esa fnukad 24-08-2007 dks vki fcuk l{ke inkfèkdkjh dh vuqefr ds dk;kZy; vofèk esa dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkr ik;s x;s] tks ,d ÁHkkjh inkfèkdkjh ds vkpj.k o lsok nkf;Ro ds Áfrdwy gS ,oa vkidh vuq'kklughurk dk ?kksrd gSA 2- foÙkh; o"kZ 1986&87 ls 1992&93 rd ,oa foÙkh; o"kZ 2006&07 esa fofHkUu inLFkkiudky esa vkids }kjk fuèkkZfjr jktLo y{; dh ÁkfIr ugha dh x;h] ftlls ljdkj dks jktLo dh {kfr gqbZA bl Ádkj vki ds fo:} dk;Z ds Áfr mnklhurk ,oa f'kfFkyrk cjrus dk vkjksi gSA 3- vkids fo:} O;olkf;;ksa dks rax djus] Hk;knksgu] mRihM+u] 'kks"k.k] voSèk olwyh] naM dk xyr uksfVl fuxZr djus rFkk U;k;ky; esa rF; ds foifjr 'kiFk&i= nk;j djus vkfn ds vkjksi gS] ftlls Árhr gksrk gS fd vki ,d fooknLin Js.kh ds inkfèkdkjh gSaA gLrk{kj@& vLi"V ,lMh@& okf.kT;&dj vk;qDr≶&Áèkku lfpo] fcgkj] iVukA** 9. On perusal of the aforesaid charges, there is no hindrance to come to the conclusion that charges were completely vague. Moreover, once against the petitioner, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated, by way of taking aid of imposing minor punishment, the Respondents were not entitled to deviate from the proceeding, as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Moreover, once against the petitioner, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated, by way of taking aid of imposing minor punishment, the Respondents were not entitled to deviate from the proceeding, as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is reiterated that in case of initiation of regular departmental proceeding, after submission of enquiry report, only on the ground that minor punishment was imposed, the Respondents by way of taking shelter of proceeding to be adopted in respect of minor punishment were not entitled to deviate from the prescribed procedure. In view of the fact that in the present case, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated and after receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order relying on the enquiry report, it was responsibility of the disciplinary authority to first communicate the enquiry report to the petitioner, so that the petitioner would have explained regarding his defence or any error in the enquiry report. The order of the disciplinary authority also assign no reason. The order of the disciplinary authority also assign no reason. At this juncture, it is necessary to incorporate the impugned order, which is as follows: ^^fcgkj ljdkj okf.kT;&dj foHkkx 63@25-03-2009 dkSu Hkh & 901@2008 vfèklwpuk fcgkj foÙk lsok ds okf.kT;&dj mik;qDr Jh y{eh ukjk;.k Álkn dks okf.kT;&dj vapy] fd'kuxat ds inLFkkiu&dky esa vufèkd`r :Ik ls vuqifLFkr jgus ,oa dfri; vU; vkjksiksa ds fy, foHkkxh; vfèklwpuk la[;k&436 fnukad 10-12-2007 }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k x;kA vufèkd`r vuqifLFkfr] fuèkkZfjr jktLo y{; ÁkIr ugha djus ,oa O;olkf;;ksa dk mRihM+u djus lacUèkh vkjksiksa ds fy, foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&454 fnukad 14-12-2007 }kjk foHkkxh; tkap vk;qDr] fcgkj ds lapkyu esa Jh Álkn ds fo:} foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lapkfyr djk;h x;hA tkap lapkyu inkfèkdkjh ds Áfrosnu ,oa lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ uEcj 1820@2008 y{eh ukjk;.k Álkn cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; esa fnukad 23-06-08 dks ikfjr U;k;&fu.kZ ds vkyksd esa bUgsa vkns'k dh frfFk ls fuyacu eqDr djrs gq, fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS %& 1- Jh Álkn dks fUkUnu dh ltk nh tkrh gS ftldh Áfof"V mudh pfj=&iqfLr ds o"kZ 2007&08 esa dh tk;sxhA 2- budh rhu okf"kZd osru o`fRr;ka vlap;kRed ÁHkko ls jksdh tkrh gSA 3- bUgsa fuyacu dh frfFk ls fnukad 26-10-2008 rd thou fuokZg HkÙkk ds vfrfjDr dqN Hkh ns; ugha gksxk rFkk fnukad 27-10-2008 ds ÁHkko ls iw.kZ osru ns; gksxkA 4- Jh Álkn dks vxys vkns'k rd ds fy, okf.kT;&dj mik;qDr] fcgkj iVuk ds in ij inLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls ¼'kqHkdhfrZ etqenkj½ okf.kT;&dj vk;qDr≶&Áèkku lfpo] fcgkj] iVukA** 10. On perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority, it is evident that the disciplinary authority without application of mind or without assigning any reason has simply recorded that he had received enquiry report and in view of order passed in C.W.J.C.No.1820 of 2008, punishment order was imposed by way of releasing the petitioner from the suspension. So far as the order passed in C.W.J.C.No.1820 of 2008 is concerned, primarily this Court had passed order either to conclude the departmental proceeding within specified time or suspension order of the petitioner was required to be vacated. Once the disciplinary authority had taken notice of the enquiry report, it was duty on the part of the disciplinary authority to supply the enquiry report to the delinquent before passing punishment order. Once the disciplinary authority had taken notice of the enquiry report, it was duty on the part of the disciplinary authority to supply the enquiry report to the delinquent before passing punishment order. Since there is nothing on record to suggest that after receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority had communicated the same to the petitioner, whereas a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that the enquiry report has never been communicated by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo No.63 dated 25.03.2009 issued under the signature of the Commercial Taxes Commissioner-cum- Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits.