IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8427 of 2008 Motiur Rehman Son of Late Abdul Latif, Resident of village- Chakbhiki, P.S.- Maniari, District- Muzaffarpur …. Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3. Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Patna 4. Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development, Regional Office, Bhagalpur. ….Respondents ----------- 6/ 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2008 terminating his service with immediate effect granting him one months’ pay in lieu of the notice period along with such other benefits e.g. G.P.F. and gratuity, if applicable. Liberty to file an appeal against the order of termination is also recited therein. Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to urge more than one ground to assail the impugned order, this court does not consider it necessary to deal with all of them since the matter can be disposed of on one ground alone. Learned counsel for the authority does not dispute the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the order is not speaking in nature. The order visits the petitioner with civil consequences depriving him of his appointment which shall necessarily have a serious adverse impact not only on the petitioner but his entire family. The fact that the authority passing the impugned order was - 2 - himself aware that his order was amenable to appeal makes it all the more obligatory on his part both in law and equity to pass an order of a speaking nature where the remedy of appeal could be meaningful. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in the submission that the impugned order contains no reasons. It has been held that the reasons are the very heart and soul of an order. Reasons are also an integral part of principles of natural justice. Reasons assure that the authority has acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction and does not exceed the same arbitrarily. Giving of reasons controls arbitrariness. It gives satisfaction to the citizen that the authority has considered his case in accordance with law, that the authority has applied its mind to the defence that he may have taken. He ultimately has the satisfaction that justice has been done to him, but unfortunately, he was not entitled to any relief in law. The citizen is left remediless at the hands of the administrator, if the administrator is not bound to the requirement for passing a reasoned order. The administrator, otherwise, in his ipse dixit will pass an order disclosing no reasons and when the citizen wants to know the reason, the authority shall reply that he is not obliged to tell him the reason. The Supreme Court in (2005) 2 SCC 235 (MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and another at paragraph 5 and 7 has observed as follows: “5. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen V. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: ( All ER P.1154h) “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexandar Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. - 3 - 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 (Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank V. P.C.Kakkar). 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. It goes without saying that the High Court shall pass a speaking order recording reasons in support of its conclusions.” This becomes all the more necessary when an order is amenable to appeal. This aspect has been elaborate discussed in AIR 1990 SC 1984 (S. N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, wherein at paragraph 35, it has been held as follows : “35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would not doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. This said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement - 4 - that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi- judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decisions of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” The impugned order dated 23.1.2008 being non-speaking in nature is not sustainable in law and is, accordingly, set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a claim for back wages. In view of the recent judicial pronouncements on the issue of back wages, and the nature of the present order passed, this court observes that if the petitioner prefers an application for back wages, the authorities are required to decide the same in accordance with the settled principles for grant of back wages, by a reasoned and speaking order after due opportunity to the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. JA/- (Navin Sinha, J.)