ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the charge-sheet issued under Memo no.998(S) W.E dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure-2), and also for quashing of the order dated 12.08.2009 as contained in Memo no.4022 (S) (Annexure-7), whereby the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner. 3. Apart from other grounds raised in the instant writ application, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order of punishment (Annexure-7) and contended that no reason, whatsoever, has been supplied by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. He further contended that now the law is no more res-integra that in every administrative decision the authorities are required to supply reasons which should be clear, composed and transparent. However, by going through the impugned order of punishment, it clearly transpires that no reason has been supplied by the disciplinary authority. He further contended that one of the punishments is with respect to non-payment of full salary during the period of suspension in view of the Rule 97(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, however, no separate notice as required under the law, was ever served to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG-I, reiterated its stands made in the counter affidavit and submits that there is no procedural error in the impugned order. She further contended that the impugned order is a well reasoned order, but the reasons have not been elaborated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner had been punished with three punishments which are mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure-7). However, from bare perusal of the impugned order it clearly transpires that no reason, whatsoever, has been given by the disciplinary authority in support of imposing the punishment. The disciplinary authority has simply mentioned that the second show-cause notice has been received and no new fact has been shown by the petitioner so as to differ with the view of the enquiry officer, and finally imposed the punishment. 6. The disciplinary authority has simply mentioned that the second show-cause notice has been received and no new fact has been shown by the petitioner so as to differ with the view of the enquiry officer, and finally imposed the punishment. 6. From record it appears that a detailed reply to the second show-cause notice was filed by the petitioner taking several grounds by challenging the charges leveled against him; however, for the reason best known to the disciplinary authority; he just passed the impugned order in one line that no new fact has been brought by the petitioner. From record it also does not appear as to whether any notice under Rule 97 was issued to the petitioner before taking recourse to Rule 97 (II) of Jharkhand Service Code for withholding full salary during the period of suspension, which is mandatory as per law. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, the instant writ application is allowed with a liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for consequential benefits. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of.