IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11174 of 2003 DR. VIJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY, son of Late Dr. Narsingh Chaudhary, resident of village- Marsand, Post Office- Morsand, Police Station- Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi. … Petitioner. Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSIty, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur through its Registrar having Office at Pusa, Samastipur. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. 3. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. 4. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. 5. The Dean, Faculty of Basic Science and Humanities Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 24.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief “(i) Issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter No. 1177 dated 8.8.2003 contained in Annexure-10, the Memo No. 496 dated 27.8.2003 contained in Annexure-12, the letter No. 1266 dated 9.9.2003 contained in Annexure-14 as well as Letter No. 1540 dated 10.10.2003 communicated vide Memo No. 593 dated 11.10.2003 contained in Annexure-16 and Annexure-16/1 respectively whereby and whererunder the Medical Claim Vouchers of Rs.95,770.62 invested in to the treatment of son of the petitioner has been rejected and direction has been issued for depositing the amount of Medical advance to the tune of Rs.80,000/- in one instilment to the Cashier, R.A.U. Pusa University, failling which action may be taken for recovery of the aforesaid advance with admissible interest thereon. (ii) Issuance of appropriate 2 writ in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent to re-imburse and to adjust the Medical Claim vouchers of Rs.95.770.62 concerning medical treatment of son of the petitioner and to pay the rest excess amount after adjusting from the Medical Advance of Rs.80,000/- given earlier.” this Court is of the considered opinion that whenever any authority of the State or its instrumentalities in exercise of its power has to reject the claim of an employee, it has to give reasons in support of its order. Reasons being soul and essence of an order be it administrative or quasi judicial in nature also fulfil the object and requirement of adherence of the principles of natural justice as was held by the Apex Court in the case of S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming reimbursement of certain expenditure spent in treatment. The University may be correct or may not be correct in rejecting such claim of the petitioner but then if the same is to be rejected as has been done by the impugned orders they ought to have supported by reason. From reading of the impugned orders contained in Annexure-10, Annexure 3 12, Annexure 14 , Annexure 16 and 16/1, it would however be clear that all that has been sought to be conveyed by them to the petitioner is that his claim has been rejected by the Authority or by the Medical Board without saying a word as to on what basis or what consideration or what rules such claim of the petitioner was not sustainable. This Court would not approve such bald non-speaking order passed by the authority of the University. That being so, the aforementioned impugned orders contained in Annexure-10, Annexure 12, Annexure 14 , Annexure 16 and 16/1 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the matter afresh and take his final decision by passing a speaking and reasoned order as with regard to the admissibility and reimbursement of the claim of the petitioner towards the treatment. Such exercise however must be completed by the Vice Chancellor within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If as a consequence of such consideration the petitioner becomes entitled for certain payment, the same 4 shall be paid to him within the same period with the refund of Rs.20,000/- already recovered from the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that till such representation of the petitioner is disposed of by the Vice Chancellor of the University in the manner indicted above, no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application to the extent indicated above is allowed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)