IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14958 of 2009 1. BAIDYANATH SINGH S/O LATE DINANATH SINGH R/O AARA ROAD VIKRAM, ROHTAS, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF (NORTH), WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (VIGILANCE), WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH DIVISION, BIRPUR DISTT.- SUPAUL ----------- 2. 24.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 6.3.2009 imposing “censure for the years 1998- 99, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, recovery of 1/3rd of Rs. 9,91,655/- and nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension to be otherwise counted in service”. The appeal against which has also been rejected by order dated 30.7.2009. The petitioner was suspended and placed under departmental proceedings on a solitary charge for certain irregular payments with regard to earth filling. On conclusion of departmental proceedings, he was served with second show cause notice dated 10.12.2008 enclosing an enquiry report to which he duly replied. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a very short submission from the enquiry report that there is no enquiry report in accordance with law inasmuch as it does not reflect application of mind by the Inquiry Officer to the evidence led in support of the 2 charge, the defence version by the petitioner, application of mind by the Inquiry Officer to balance the two and then recording his reasoned conclusion why the defence was not acceptable and how the charge stood proved. It appears that this issue of non-speaking and unreasoned enquiry report was specifically raised by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice urging that it prejudiced him in filing a proper reply also notwithstanding which he did file a reply. The petitioner appears to have raised this issue in his memo of appeal also that the enquiry report was unreasoned and non-speaking which unfortunately has not been discussed by the appellate authority, which cryptically states that whatever the petitioner was seeking to urge were all matters considered by the Inquiry Officer and by the disciplinary authority in reply to the second show cause notice. A departmental proceeding is in the nature of a quasi judicial enquiry. It is, therefore, akin to a judicial order. Any order to be passed in such a proceeding having adverse consequences to the delinquent is, therefore, required to be reasoned and discussed. It has repeatedly been held that reasons are the heart and soul of the order. Reasons are the control on arbitrariness. An unreasoned order may suffer from the vice of ipsi dixit of the Inquiry Officer unable to meet the defence denying the charges. In an uncomfortable situation the Inquiry Officer may simply choose not to give any reason and opine simplicitor that he was satisfied of 3 the charges having been proved. That is, however, not the requirement of the law. Justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done. Reasons are another facet of this adage that justice must appear to be done. It is for this reason that the Courts have repeatedly required authorities exercising quasi judicial power to reflect full transparency of application of mind in their orders discussing the materials placed before them to arrive at any conclusion. In the nature of the enquiry report, which is the edifice, the petitioner both in his reply to the second show cause and in the appeal raised this issue specifically, which has not been considered. If the edifice itself be illegal, all subsequent orders shall be illegal. The order of punishment dated 6.3.2009 and the appellate order dated 30.7.2009 are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Inquiry Officer. Considering that the enquiry report was submitted as far back as 22.7.2008, this Court does not consider it prudent to direct that the Inquiry Officer shall only proceed to write a speaking written report as in that event he shall be going by his failing human memory, of all that may have been raised and argued before him. This Court, therefore, directs while setting aside the inquiry report that the Inquiry Officer shall hold fresh enquiry when it shall be open to both sides to raise all issues of facts and law arising from the original charge. Any recovery 4 effected from the petitioner in the meantime shall abide by the final result in the fresh departmental proceeding when depending on the situation issues of grant of interest on the same may also have to be adequately considered. The writ application is allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)