JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned SC-III for the respondents-State through V.C. 2. The instant writ application was initially preferred for quashing part of notification dated 15.09.2011, whereby while revoking the order of suspension of the petitioner the payment of salary was withheld, however, during pendency of this case a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed which clearly transpires that the entire salary for the period of suspension has been paid to this petitioner; as such, this prayer of the petitioner does not survive. 3. From record it further transpires that an interlocutory application was filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure-15 to I.A) whereby punishment was imposed upon petitioner including withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The grievance of this petitioner is that though the penalty imposed is a major penalty but admittedly; no enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner and/or no show cause was asked before passing the final order. He further submits that one Smt. Rajbala Verma was conducting officer of the proposed enquiry who was also the reporting officer in the capacity of Secretary of Finance Department and also an officer who dealt with the matter as Vigilance Commissioner/Cabinet (Vigilance Department) as such, she cannot be adjudicator of her own action. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sahani contended that the entire enquiry is vitiated on the above grounds. Even otherwise, though initially the proceeding was initiated for minor punishment, however, the order of punishment is certainly a major one. As such, in view of catena of judgments, the respondent authorities were duty bound to issue a second show cause notice along with handing over the enquiry report and asking for a reply before taking final decision which has not been done in the instant case. As such, the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 should be quashed and set aside and all consequential benefits should be given to this petitioner. 4. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the State submits that Rajbala Verma was only in the capacity of an officer recommended for enquiry; as such, that ground of the petitioner is non-est in the eye of law. However, from record it does not transpire that the enquiry report or show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the State submits that Rajbala Verma was only in the capacity of an officer recommended for enquiry; as such, that ground of the petitioner is non-est in the eye of law. However, from record it does not transpire that the enquiry report or show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He fairly submits that in any major penalty the condition precedence is to hand over the enquiry report along with the show cause notice awaiting reply before passing the order of punishment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that following two punishments were imposed by the disciplinary authority: (A) Censure. (B) Withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect. 6. By going through the impugned order it transpires that no reason has been assigned in passing the order of punishment. It further transpires from perusal of the impugned order that the petitioner was suspended on the basis of his involvement in RC 17 (A)/2009 (R) and RC 21 (A)/2009 (R); cases instituted by the CBI. However, the CBI has categorically stated that no criminality has been found against this petitioner. However, two increments were withheld with cumulative effect apart from censure. 7. Be that as it may, since it is a major penalty, handing over of the enquiry report as well as issuance of second show cause notice before imposing punishment is required under law which is missing in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 as contained in Annexure 15 to I.A. No. 264 of 2012, is, hereby quashed and set aside. 8. It has been informed to this Court by learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner has already retired on 31.01.2016, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the case back to the disciplinary authority to continue the proceeding afresh from the stage of serving of enquiry report and show-cause notice because of the riders as enshrined in Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules. Even otherwise, there is no allegation of any misappropriation of fund etc. 9. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application is allowed. Even otherwise, there is no allegation of any misappropriation of fund etc. 9. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the consequential benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.