JUDGMENT : (P.B. Bajanthri, J.) Pursuant to our previous order dated 02.07.2024, cost of Rs. 2,000/- is remitted in the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Receipt of the same shall be kept on record. 2. Appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 passed in CWJC No. 13296 of 2014. There is a short delay of about 59 days in filing LPA No. 1326 of 2019. Appellant has filed I.A. No. 01 of 2019 for condonation of delay of about 59 days. 3. For the reasons stated in the application read with the affidavit, delay of 59 days stands condoned. I.A. No. 01 of 2019 allowed. 4. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, LPA is taken up for final disposal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that appellant while working as a Block Development Officer at Rajgir in Nalanda District, the State Election Commission issued code of conduct. For discharging the election duties the concerned State Election Officer had requested large number of officers to provide vehicles for the purpose of conducting election. The appellant who was a Block Development Officer at Rajgir in Nalanda District, in providing a particular vehicle to the State Election Commission, there was a delay of about two hours. The same has been taken note of and proceeded to initiate departmental inquiry against the appellant. The inquiring officer held that charge levelled against the appellant was not proved. Resultantly disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiring officer's report proceeded to issue show cause notice on 31.01.2012 and on receipt of appellant's reply proceeded to pass order while imposing the penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty dated 02.05.2012 appellant has invoked the remedy under writ jurisdiction in filing CWJC No. 13296 of 2014. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss CWJC No. 13296 of 2014 on 16.07.2019. Hence, the present LPA. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the disciplinary authority has failed to comply Rule 18 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is in respect of action on the inquiry report. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the disciplinary authority has failed to comply Rule 18 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is in respect of action on the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority is empowered to either accept the inquiring officer's report or if he is disagreeing in such circumstances, he was required to issue a notice to the extent of what is the error committed by the inquiring officer in not considering the relevant material and other things so as to enable the appellant to furnish his reply. The appellant had filed his reply to the show cause notice. However, perusal of the penalty order dated 02.05.2012 there is no iota of reference to the appellant's reply. In other words, it is a non speaking order. Be that as it may, disagreeing with the inquiring officer's report and issuance of show cause notice and seeking explanation procedure is defeated or empty formality undertaken by the disciplinary authority. This issue has not been examined by the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforementioned contention and submitted that appellant has been punished with a minor penalty. Therefore, sufficient reasons have been assigned in the penalty order dated 02.05.2012. Hence, no interference is called for insofar as order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 passed in CWJC No. 13296 of 2014. 8. It is also submitted that having regard to the contention of the appellant to the extent that he failed to obey the orders of the officers of the State Election Commission in not providing vehicle timely resulted in disruption of State Election duty. 9. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. Undisputed facts are that appellant while working as a Block Development Officer at Rajgir in Nalanda district. State was facing election. State Election Commission sought vehicle from the appellant. In providing vehicle to the State Election Commission there was a delay of about two hours. On this score appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. 10. The learned Single Judge has not taken note of Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. In providing vehicle to the State Election Commission there was a delay of about two hours. On this score appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. 10. The learned Single Judge has not taken note of Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is necessary to reproduce Rule 18 and it reads as under- 18. Action on the inquiry report- (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, may remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 17 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the enquiry report as per rule 17 (23) (ii) or as per sub-rule (1), shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, together with its own findings, if any, as provided in sub-rule (2), to the government servant who may submit, if he or she so desires, his or her written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days. (4) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation or submission, if any, submitted by the government servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub rules (5) and (6). [underline supplied] (5) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 14 should be imposed on the government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule-19, make an order imposing such penalty. [underline supplied] (5) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 14 should be imposed on the government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule-19, make an order imposing such penalty. (6) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in [clauses (vi) to (xi) of Rule 14] should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) and (6), in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Commission shall be consulted and its advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. 11. Reading of the aforementioned statutory provision it empowers disciplinary authority to either accept the inquiring officer's report or if he is disagreeing with the inquiring officer's report in that event he has to assign the reason to what extent inquiring officer has committed error in giving finding that charge levelled against the appellant was not proved. Perusal of the documents read with the final order of punishment dated 02.05.2012 prima facie the disciplinary authority has not complied Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Perusal of the documents read with the final order of punishment dated 02.05.2012 prima facie the disciplinary authority has not complied Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Further it is to be noticed that issuance of show cause notice under Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 on behalf of the disciplinary authority on 31.01.2012 and thereafter receiving the appellant's explanation has only an empty formality, in not considering reply/explanation/representation, order of penalty dated 02.05.2012 is silent, and it reads as under- fcgkj ljdkj lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx %% ladYi %% iVuk&15] fnukad&02-05-12 Jh lR;sUnz dqekj ¼fc0iz0ls0½] dksfV dzekad 1211@08] rRdkyhu iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] csu ¼ukyUnk½ ds fo:) ftyk inkf/kdkjh] ukyUnk ds i=kad 5284 fnukad 07-11-2009 }kjk izi= ^d^ esa dŸkZO; ds izfr ykijokgh] euekus &#2338ax ls dk;Z djuk rFkk ojh; inkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk djuk ,oa dk;ksZa esa ykijokgh cjrus vkjksi izfrosfnr fd;k x;kA 2- izfrosfnr vkjksiksa ij vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ls Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax foHkkxh; i=kad 3187 fnukad 08-04-2010 }kjk dh xbZ rFkk Jh dqekj ls izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ds leh{kksijkar vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkj }kjk foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k 2147 fnukad 22-03-2011 foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh xbZA foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr~ izkIr tkWap izfrosnu esa Jh dqekj ds fo:) ojh; inkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk ,oa dk;ksZa esa ykijokgh cjrus laca/kh vkjksi izekf.kr ugh crk;k x;kA 3- tkWap izfrosnu ds leh{kksijkar vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkj }kjk ;g ik;k x;k fd vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuokZpu dk;Z esa ojh; inkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu djus esa vढkbZ ?kaVs dk le; cjckn fd;k x;k rFkk muls cgl dh xbZA ftlls fuokZpu tSls egRoiw.kZdk;Z esa vLr&OLrrk mRiUu gqbZ rnuqlkj vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ls foHkkxh; i=kad 1638 fnukad 31-01-2012 }kjk f}rh; dkj.k&i`PNk dh ekax dh xbZA vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh }kjk f}rh; dkj.k&i`PNk esa vius iwoZ dh ckrksa dks gh nqgjk;k x;k gS rFkk dksbZ u;k rF; ugha j[kk x;k gS ftlij fopkj fd;k tk ldsA 4- vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ds fo:) izfrosfnr vkjksi] muls izkIr Li"Vhdj.k] tkWap izfrosnu ,oa f}rh; dkj.k&i`PNk dh leh{kk djus ds i'pkr~ vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkj }kjk ;g ik;k x;k gS fd Jh lR;sUnz dqekj }kjk vius dk;ksZa esa ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gSA blfy, vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkj }kjk Jh dqekj dks fuEufyf[kr naM lalwfpr fd;k tkrk gS %& (i) nks osru o`f);ksa vlap;kRed izHkko ls jksdus dk n.MA 5- ;g n.M rqjar ds izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA vkns'k %& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dh izfr fcgkj jkti= ds vxys vlk/kkj.k vad esa izdkf'kr fd;k tk; rFkk bldh izfr vk;qDr] iVuk izeaMy] iVuk@ftyk inkf/kdkjh] dSewj] HkHkqvk@ftyk & inkf/kdkjh & ukyUnk@ Jh lR;sUnz dqekj ¼fc0iz0ls0½] dksfV dzekad 1211@08] lEizfr vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] HkHkqvk] dSewj dks Hkst nh tk;A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] g0 ¼vt; dqekj flUgk½ fo'ks"k dk;Z inkf/kdkjh ≶&ljdkj ds mi lfpo There is not even reference to the reply filed on behalf of the appellant and further perusal of appellant's reply consisting of four pages none of the contentions have been considered. On the other hand, very vaguely stated that no new points have been raised. Therefore penalty order is without application of mind. 12. In the light of these facts and circumstances, appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 passed in CWJC No. 13296 of 2014. Impugned order in CWJC No. 02.05.2012 insofar as imposition of penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect stands set aside. LPA allowed. 13. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to restore appellant's withheld increments and refix his pay and pension and release difference of pay and pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.