IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12378 of 2010 Yogendra Prasad Singh S/O Late Matukdhari Singh R/O House No.1/10, Vivekanand Marg, North S.K.Puri, P.S.Sri Krishanpuri, Distt-Patna. …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building , Patna 2. The Secretary to Govt. in The Road Construction Department Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary to Govt. in the Road Construction Department Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road , Patna 4. The Joint Secretary to Govt. in the Road Construction Department Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road , Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) Govt. In The Road Construction Department Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 6. The Commissioner Of Department Enquiry , In The Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms Old Secretary Building, Patna 7. The Accountant General Bihar, Veer Chand Patel Path, 'R' -Block, Patna. …Respondents For the Petitioner: M/s. Chitranjan Sinha (Sr. Advoate), Sunil Kumar Singh & Sidhartha Prasad, Advocates. For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, (A.A.G-V). For the Accountant General : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 2 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding on 6 charges. The enquiry report exonerated him of charge one and four. A second show cause followed on the proved charges as also for a difference of opinion on the exonerated charges. The petitioner submitted his reply. The intervening superannuation led to continuance of the proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules) culminating in an order of punishment dated 14.01.2010 for deduction of 10% of 2 pension and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension which was otherwise to be counted for service. The Court at this stage does not consider it necessary to deal with the contention of the petitioner that a second composite show cause notice on the proved and unproved charges was not permissible and that the respondents were first required to give a separate second show cause notice for a difference of opinion, consider his defence, pass final orders and then to be followed by a separate notice for the proposed punishment. The case can be disposed off on another ground. A departmental proceeding is an extremely serious matter. It visits the government servant with adverse consequences not only in service but also a social stigma amongst his peers. In a case like the present where pensionary resources are affected, it assumes greater proportions. If the petitioner was exonerated on some charges and the respondents proposed to differ with the exoneration, fairness and reasonableness on their part required them to properly consider the defence of the petitioner and by complete disclosure of mind supported by reasons arrive at a finding why the defence taken was not acceptable and he could not retain the benefit of exoneration. In absence of such a reasoned order, the petitioner stands deprived of the report of 3 exoneration arbitrarily. What happens if the disciplinary authority finds it difficult to reject the defence taken supporting the exoneration? Can he by a cryptic non speaking order simply and rhetorically hold that the defence has been considered and rejected which he otherwise finds difficult to do on merits. The impugned order of the disciplinary authority is cryptic, non-speaking and therefore not sustainable. The Revision preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected on 02.07.2010 by an unreasoned and cryptic order. No useful purpose shall be served by remanding matters to the Revisional authority as the defect lies at the stage before the disciplinary authority and against whose order the Revision jurisdiction arises. The order of punishment dated 14.01.2010 and the Revisional order dated 02.07.2010 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order as discussed. The writ application is allowed. Md. Ibrarul ( Navin Sinha, J.)