JUDGMENT : Writ petition has been filed for quashing notification contained in Memo no. 1231(9) H Pat dated 5.12.2017 by which respondents have inflicted punishment by which the period since May, 2014 to 10.5.2016 (annexure 9) during which petitioner was found to be on unauthorized absence and will not be counted for calculation of pension. Further, punishment has been imposed for stoppage of three increment without cumulative effect and lastly withholding of promotion for 10 years. 2. While the petitioner was posted as the Medical officer at Veer Additional Primary Health Centre, Dhanarua in the Patna District, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide resolution contained in memo no. 505(9) dated 10.5.2016 (Annexure 9). Additional Director was appointed conducting officer, whereas the in-charge Medical Officer, Dhanarua was appointed as Presenting officer in the said departmental proceedings. Petitioner appeared and submitted his reply and thereafter enquiry report was submitted on 9.12.2016 (Annexure 10). None of the charges were found proved by the conducting officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority differing with the same issued second show cause vide letter dated 28.6.2017 (Annexure 11) which was duly replied by the petitioner on 10.7.2017 (Annexure 12) and 3.8.2017 (Annexure 13). After consideration of the same, impugned order of punishment was passed. 3. Assailing the impugned order of punishment dated 10.5.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the memo of charge was prepared and submitted by the in-charge Medical Officer, Dhanarua, who was junior to the petitioner. He submits that the in-charge Medical Officer, being junior to the petitioner, is not a competent authority for preparation of charge memo in light of provisions of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and on this score alone, the departmental proceeding is fit to be quashed at the initial stage itself. Another defence of the petitioner is that the punishment order has been inflicted on the petitioner without consideration of his second show cause reply as in terms of Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, authorities were required to consider and discuss the explanation submitted by the petitioner before passing the punishment order. In support of the submissions, he relies upon decisions in case of Niranjan Kumar Dutta Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2019(2) PLJR 983 ; Dr. Chandan Prasad Singh Vs. In support of the submissions, he relies upon decisions in case of Niranjan Kumar Dutta Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2019(2) PLJR 983 ; Dr. Chandan Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2018(2) PLJR 205 and a judgment of coordinate bench of this Court passed in case of Upendra Prasad Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 22251 of 2018). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality as the same has been passed after following due procedure of law and also after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner for defending himself in the enquiry proceeding as well as in the departmental proceeding. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and perused the materials available on the record. 6. On going through the resolution contained in Memo no. 505(9) dated 10.5.2026 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2), it is apparent that the departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 in which a senior official of the Health Department, namely, Dr. Radhakant Singh, Additional Director, Family Welfare Department, Bihar was appointed as conducting officer and an authorized officer of the Civil Surgeon, Patna was appointed as Presenting Officer. Memo of charge was also sent to the petitioner along with this resolution (Annexure A to the counter affidavit). In view of Annexure A to the counter affidavit, defence of the petitioner that, in contravention of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, charge memo had been prepared by the in-charge Medical Officer, who was junior to the petitioner, will not confer any cause to the petitioner to dispute the impugned order, as such, this defence is fit to be rejected. 7. So far as second contention of the petitioner is concerned, the same has substance. From perusal of the order of punishment, it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority, without taking into consideration or discussing show cause reply of the petitioner, has mechanically passed the impugned order. The impugned order does not contain any discussion as to how the petitioner's reply to the second show cause notice was not acceptable to the disciplinary authority referring to the points taken therein. The impugned order does not contain any discussion as to how the petitioner's reply to the second show cause notice was not acceptable to the disciplinary authority referring to the points taken therein. In this case, order of punishment does not disclose the application of mind. As per Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, it it incumbent upon the authorities concerned to consider the representation made by the employees and such consideration means a conscious application of mind and also a consideration of the explanation given by the employees in an objective basis. Reference is made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1983 PLJR 92 . 8. On careful consideration of the rival submissions of the parties as also the legal precedents discussed above, this Court is of the view that the Disciplinary Authority has passed order of punishment in violation of law laid down by this Court as well as disciplinary rules, as such, the impugned order of punishment vide notification contained in Memo no. 1231(9) H Pat dated 5.12.2017 is hereby set aside. 9. Since this Court has quashed the impugned order only on the ground of there being no reasoned order and its being in violation of the principle of natural justice, liberty is given to the respondents to pass a fresh order after taking into account the defence of the petitioner disclosed in the second show cause reply within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order. 10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed only to the extent indicated above.