IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10470 of 2000 PRAHLAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 12. 21.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules for alleged irregularity in the construction of the Dyke at the Kansjore Reservoir Project. A show cause notice was issued to him to which he replied, when the order of punishment for recovery of 2.89 lacs from his salary @ 50% of the same every month and withholding of promotion for three years were passed. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same has been rejected by order dated 18.12.2006. It was submitted that the show cause notice was issued on basis of an alleged report of the flying squad, which was never made available to the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply to the show cause requested for some specified documents even while denying that he was not posted at the project at the relevant time. In fact, he also urged that his signature has been forged in the Government records and, therefore, the request for supply of copy of the measurement book, site order etc. This was sought on 22.2.1998, soon after the show cause notice dated 5.2.1998. The authorities did not supply him the documents neither did they say that the documents that he was seeking were frivolous and irrelevant to the issue. The petitioner again sent a reminder on 10.6.1999 for the same. What - 2 - followed next was the order of punishment. Learned counsel for the State urged that the petitioner had not been prejudiced in any manner as he submitted his reply to the show cause notice, on consideration of which the impugned order has been passed. In the event of a minor punishment to be imposed, there is no need for holding a full-fledged departmental enquiry. The giving of a show cause notice and proper consideration of the reply shall suffice. Nonetheless, the show cause notice must contain all relevant materials with necessary particulars to enable the petitioner to submit a proper reply. In the facts of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner was sought to be proceeded against on basis of a report of the flying squad inspected and prepared behind his back. Fairness required the Respondents to make him available the documents/materials on basis of which he was sought to be indicted especially when the petitioner raised the issues inter alia of his not being deputed at the site, when the works were executed in majority, the forgery of his signature, his request for relevant documents. The Respondents were obliged not only to deliver him the documents but also to consider the issues raised by him in their final order. The petitioner had reserved his right to file a proper reply after the documents are made available to him. No further documents were made available when the impugned order dated 22.11.1999 states that his show cause has been considered and found unsatisfactory. To this Court there was in fact no reply to the show cause notice. In fact, it was a preliminary reply reserving the - 3 - right to file a detailed reply after necessary documents were made available. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that the order dated 22.11.1999 is arbitrary for the reason that it does not disclose any consideration of the show cause, any application of mind by the disciplinary authority, to demonstrate as to how and why the petitioner was being held guilty and his explanations were not acceptable. It has been repeatedly held in judicial decisions that the requirement to give reasons acts as strong check on arbitrariness. It becomes evidence of fairness demonstrating due application of mind in passing the order and also keeps the delinquent satisfied that his case was considered. What may be the result of such consideration is an entirely different matter. The vice from which the order of punishment dated 22.11.1999 suffers is further compounded by the appellate order, which is completely non-speaking in nature and reflects no consideration whatsoever to the grounds raised in the appeal and what the findings against the delinquent originally were and for what reason the appellate authority did not find justification for the reasons urged in the appeal. Since both the order of punishment dated 22.11.1999 and the appellate order dated 18.12.2006 are arbitrary on the face of it coupled with the original order being in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, both the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to refund of the deducted amount that may have been made on that account from him, if any, as also for - 4 - due consideration of his case for promotion, as if the impugned order of punishment has never been passed. Let the relief on both counts be made available to the petitioner within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)