IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8780 of 2005 RABBAN AHMAD MALLICK, S/O LATE SULEMAN MALLICK, R/O VILLAGE-BELLOWA, POLICE STATION-RAJGIR, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ...............Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA HAVING HIS OFFICE IN OLD SECRETARIAT, P.S.- SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GAYA. 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GAYA. ................Respondents ----------- 03 22.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, whereby he has challenged the order of Appellate Authority vide memo no. 770 dated 16.03.2005, affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority i.e. dated 07.05.2003 Annexure-2 of the writ petition. The petitioner has moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8400 of 2003 and this Court vide 2 order dated 09.12.2003 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Appellate Authority, as well as of the Disciplinary Authority. In the writ petition he has raised several points, such as the order of Appellate Authority does not discuss the merit that he has set out in his memo of appeal. He has further argued that the Disciplinary Authority has not followed the procedure that was required to be adopted before passing the order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority as he was not giving the second show cause nor he was given notice under Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code as to how the period of suspension to be treated nor he was given the personal hearing to him before passing the impugned order. For the present this Court is not going to consider every aspects of the matter rather limiting order with regard the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It appears that the Appellate Authority has not applied his mind because he has not discussed the merit what the petitioner has set out in the memo of appeal, non-recording of 3 reasons is against the natural justice as it was the duty of the Appellate Authority to assign the reason while dismissing the memo of appeal. In this regard the following judgments will be relevant for the present case:- 2009 (3) L.L.J. 624 (Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vrs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others). A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1785( The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vrs. The Union of India and Another.). The relevant paragraph in the case of Union of Indian and Ors Vrs. Jai Prakash Singh and another reported in 2007 (10) S.C.C. 712, reads as follows:- “ 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.' In AIalexander Machinery (Dubley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: ' Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision- taker to the controversy in question 4 and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a 5 judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” As the Appellate Authority has not discussed the merit nor assigned any reason. The order of Appellate Authority i.e. Annexure-1 dated 16.03.2005 is not sustainable in law, the same is quashed, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider each and every points made out in the memo of appeal, assign the reason for not accepting the grounds made in the memo of appeal. The Appellate Authority before passing any order will issue notice to the petitioner for personal hearing. The Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, will pass a reasoned order as stated hereinabove. This process should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order This writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned herein above. Safik (Shivaji Pandey, J.)