IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11411 of 2009 Jagadish Prasad Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11414 of 2009 Jagadish Prasad Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ------- 3. 12.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Assailing the order of punishment dated 16.1.2009/22.1.2009 stopping two increments with non cumulative effect, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even a minor punishment could not have been imposed without a show cause and consideration of the same. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the impugned orders itself says that his reply has been considered. Giving of a show cause notice is not an empty formality. Any order of punishment, major or minor, affects the delinquent with adverse civil consequences. The delinquent therefore has a right to know why the defence furnished by him was not acceptable before he has to be visited with the adverse consequence. The need for a reasoned order also forces the disciplinary authority to stay within bounds of his power. Unguided discretion can only result in arbitrariness. When a reply to show cause is filed and the disciplinary authority does not consider it, the possible reasonable conclusion also is that he found uncomfortable to reject the defence taken and therefore prefers to ignore it. This amounts to ignoring the relevant materials before passing the final order rendering it arbitrary. The impugned orders dated 16.1.2009/22.1.20009 does not state any reason why after consideration the cause shown was not acceptable. Counsel for the State has suggested that the order of punishment may be set aside and the matter remanded. The normal law is that if an order of punishment is set aside for procedural infirmity the matter must be remanded to commence from the stage of irregularities. But this is not a standard rule and can largely depend on the facts of a case. The petitioner has superannuated in December 2010. If the allegations were serious and it was question of finance of the State, different consideration would have arisen. But after consideration of the allegations and the defence if the State thought it fit for imposition of a minor punishment only the Court is not persuaded to remand the matter and leaves the petitioner to peace in the evening of his life after superannuation. The writ applications are allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)