IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4797 of 2009 NAWAL KISHORE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 16/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on daily wages on 1.3.1981 when he came to be appointed against a vacant sanctioned post of peon. He was promoted to the post of a clerk on 22.4.1987 and confirmed as such on 21.5.1990. Certain issues arose with regard to the nature of his appointment leading to a show cause notice on 1.1.2001. An enquiry was directed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya. The Additional Collector, Gaya submitted his report on 9.11.2000 at annexure-9. The report stated that no details with regard to reservation roster was available but otherwise the appointments were in accordance with law. The name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.2 of the list of persons whose appointment was under consideration. The salary of the petitioner was nonetheless stopped. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2879/01 disposed with liberty to the District Magistrate to examine the matter on 2 11.2.2001. This led to a fresh enquiry. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee. The committee which consisted of four persons namely the medical officer, Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad, the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad and the Civil Surgeon, Jehanabad, submitted its report on 6.5.2002 that the appointment of the petitioner was valid. An order of confirmation of the report followed on 24.7.2002 by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar followed by reconfirmation of the validity of the appointment by notification contained in Memo. No. 968 dated 6.8.2002. Nonetheless, the service of the petitioner was terminated on 12.7.2003 which is appended at Annexure-20. It does not make any reference to the enquiry report of the four-man-committee dated 6.5.2002. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7658/03. This Court on 27.8.2003 stayed the operation of the order of termination. It is submitted that ultimately C.W.J.C. No.4758/03 was again referred to a three-man-committee as part of enbloc orders passed by this Court referring such orders to the committee on 26.6.2006 when the individual cases did not come up for consideration, but the order was passed on a bunch of analogous cases. Then has followed the impugned order of termination afresh on 5.1.2009. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner is very right in his submission that the impugned order of termination is non-speaking in nature. It does not disclose the nature of the illegality in the appointment of the petitioner as may have been found by the committee afresh. Learned counsel is further right in his submission that the impugned order does not reflect application of mind to the orders dated 9.11.2000, 6.5.2002, 24.7.2002 and 6.8.2002 affirming the legality of his appointment. Learned counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit, but on merits is unable to make any submissions on the limited argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not consider the earlier orders of the respondent themselves on the legality of the appointment. The impugned order of termination dated 5.1.2009, being non-speaking in nature, is difficult for this Court to sustain. The Courts have repeatedly held that reasons are the soul and heart of an order. It controls arbitrariness and controls the exercise of discretion by the authority. This Court can do no better than quote Para-5 of a judgement of the Supreme Court in (2005) 2 S.C.C. 235 (MMRDA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION KEDARNATH RAO CHORPADE Versus 4 MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER):- “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” The impugned order dated 5.1.2009 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. In the circumstances it is for the respondents to decide what they wish to do and not for this Court to advise them. Since the very order dated 5.1.2009 has been set aside, all consequential orders automatically stand set aside. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)