IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11451 of 2010 1. Saroj Kumar Pathak S/O Late Mohan Pathak R/O Quarter No. 10 B, Damuchak Road Muzaffarpur, P.S. Kazi Muhammadpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Commercial Taxes Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 2. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes 3. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 4. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to AAG- I ----------- 2. 18.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Stenographer cum Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department, submits that he was granted lst time bound promotion on 16.8.1988 provisionally and his pay scale fixed under 4th pay revision. It was confirmed on 5.7.2005. The enhanced pay scale including the revised central pay commission revisions were granted to him consequently in the appropriate pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- which was again approved on 31.1.20200. The respondents based on a subsequent decision dated 15.10.2004 appear to be contending that the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- was not his entitlement which appropriately should be RS. 4000-6000/- leading to the impugned orders dated 8.7.2009/24.7.2009 simultaneously ordering recovery also. A representation of the petitioner on 30.3.2010 has evoked cryptic and non speaking response on 16.4.2010 refusing to disclose reasons. The counter affidavit also does not disclose any reason. Strong reliance has been placed on certain orders of this Court in 2 CWJC No. 13400 of 2003 contending that it supports the claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the State opposed the application to submit that the petitioner was well aware of the wrong fixation of the pay scale in accordance with the government circulars. No prejudice has been caused to him. The Court may not interfere. The order reducing the pay scale undoubtedly has adverse civil consequence on a government servant more particularly when it orders recovery simultaneously. At this stage the Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is more concerned with the decision making process rather than the decision itself. If the decision making process is appropriate the Court may decline to go into merits of the matter. From the facts it appears that after the respondents issued the impugned order the petitioner represented on 30.3.2010. A copy of the representation has been placed on record. The Court does not consider it necessary to go into details of the same except to notice that it appears to be reasoned with relevant facts. The impugned orders with regard to him do not contain any narration that notice was issued to the petitioner with a liberty to show cause before passing the final order. Presumably if a show cause notice has been issued and final orders passed, the petitioner in all probability would not have filed a representation thereafter. There has to be difference between a show cause notice which precedes an order and a representation filed pursuant to an order. A show cause notice which precedes an order discloses the mind of the authority specifying the reasons why an order adverse to the person concerned is proposed to be passed. It enables the person concerned to understand the mind of the authority why it proposes to pass an order and then furnish his representation 3 accordingly. Without first understanding the mind of the authority, it is difficult for a person on individual perception to appreciate what may or may not be passing in the mind of the authority and then furnish his defence on assumption and presumption. The fact that the petitioner may have filed a representation subsequently will not suffice in law for a show cause notice preceding the impugned order. If the petitioner had filed a representation the least that was expected by the respondents was to furnish him reasons why his representation was not acceptable. The petitioner upon perusal of the reasons may possibly have been satisfied that his understanding was wrong and possibly he may have opted not to pursue the matter further. The order dated 16.4.2010 rejecting his representation simply states that it was not worth consideration. The counter affidavit is again of no help. The reason sought to be explained on merit is required to be first made known to the petitioner with opportunity to defend. This Court has repeatedly held that a person who obtains an order in his favour may not be interested in knowing reasons of the order overwhelmed by success. But a person who has to suffer an adverse order has a right to be furnished the reason. He must be told why the authorities do not propose to give him the relief. In absence of reason any administrative order prima facie is clearly unsustainable. It would not suffice for the respondents to pass orders non speaking in nature and then tell the Court that they will now disclose reasons. That is generating litigation. The Court does not approve of the same. Additionally it runs the danger of arbitrary orders sans reason. The impugned orders dated 8.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 are set aside. The respondents are granted liberty to serve a show cause notice upon the petitioner, consider his reply and then pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law. 4 It is ordered that if the respondents propose to do so they shall complete the exercise within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The deduction made, if any, shall abide by the same. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)