SHAMBHU NATH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) A very short question is involved in this case and, as such, with the consent of the parties this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that when the disciplinary authority differed with the report of the Inquiry Officer it was incumbent upon the authority to assign it 's reasons. In support of his decision he has relied on the decision reported in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra; A.I.R. 1998 SC 273. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State with reference to the case of The High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil and another; A.I.R. 2000 SC 22, submits that the latest view of the Supreme Court is that it is not imperative for the disciplinary authority to discuss the materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer while differing with the enquiry report.