IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11787 of 2010 1. Arun Kumar Singh S/O Sri Dhaneshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Sajour, P.O. Sajour, (Nath Nagar), Distt.- Bhagalpur, Presently Posted As Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department Road Sub-Division Lakhisarai-I, Distt.- Lakhisarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Chief Vigilance Officer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna ---------------------------------- 2. 22.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.3.2010 visiting him with a modified punishment for „censure‟ to be entered in his character roll for the year 1998-99 and stoppage of “two increments with non cumulative effect”. Both the punishments are minor in nature. Learned Counsel submits that after the show cause notice and alleged consideration of the cause shown the respondents passed a non speaking order on 29.9.2009 imposing punishment of „censure‟ to be entered in his character roll for the year 1998-99 as also stoppage of “three increments with non cumulative effect”. The petitioner represented against the same whereafter the present impugned order has been passed. Assailing the fresh order it is submitted that it does not reflect any application of mind to the review application filed. There is no reason why the grounds taken by him were not appealing in its entirety to the respondents. The order visits him with adverse consequences and was therefore required to be reasoned. His chances to be considered for promotion are being affected. 2 Though no counter affidavit has been filed despite passage of nearly one and half years, learned Counsel for the State submits that fairness in action is evident from the reconsideration done and the punishment reduced. If the fresh order dated 8.3.2010 had simply reiterated the punishments imposed by the order dated 29.9.2009 reciting simple reconsideration only, the petitioner may have been correct in his submission regarding non application of mind and supported by the absence of reasons. But whether there has been application of mind or not in a given case shall have to be ascertained on the facts and circumstances of that case. The petitioner was visited with a higher punishment. He represented before the authorities. The fresh order states that on consideration of his representation the reduced punishment was being passed. An administrative order is not akin to a judicial order. While the giving of reasons is an absolute imperative in a judicial order, an administrative order itself may be indicative of the application of mind. In such circumstances it is not necessary to spell out and state reasons when otherwise it can be culled from the language of the order itself that there has been due application of mind. In (2005) 1 SCC 13 (Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India) the notice for enhancement of punishment was reduced to a lesser punishment after consideration of the cause shown lending the Supreme Court to hold at paragraph 29 as follows:- “29……..A reading of the show-cause notice and the final order passed by the appellate authority clearly goes to show that the appellate authority has thoroughly considered the detailed submissions made by the appellant and has reached its conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case and has modified the proposed penalty of dismissal to that of penalty of removal. There is total application of mind on the part of the 3 appellate authority in arriving at the conclusion in regard to punishment.” The impugned order states that his representation has been considered. The respondents were satisfied of the need for modification by reduction of the punishment after consideration of his application for review. The punishment stands reduced to with holding of two increments with cumulative effect from the original order withholding three increments with non cumulative effect. Considering the entirety of the matter including the nature of the punishment imposed the Court is not persuaded to interfere. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)