IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9500 of 2003 RABINDRA NATH MISHRA & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 6. 01.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. By Annexures 4 and 4/A dated 13.8.1992 and 15.7.1993 respectively the petitioners were granted first time bound promotion. The orders of promotion are not in a single line but are reasoned order of promotion inter alia with reference to Finance Department notification. After their superannuation, public notices were published in Hindi daily ‘Hindustan’ to show cause as to why time bound promotion be not cancelled. The petitioners submitted their replies as appended at Annexure 11 to the writ application. Thereafter has followed the impugned order dated 24.5.2003 issued by the State Government cancelling their first time bound promotion. It does not discuss or deal with in what manner the orders of promotion were contrary to law. All that it states is that the time bound promotion was not to be given to those who had been given regular promotion. It then rejects the cause shown by the petitioners in one line by stating that on consideration of the same there was no merit in it. The time bound promotion granted to the petitioners has been sought to be withdrawn nearly ten-eleven years later after superannuation. It visits them with adverse consequences and further directs revision of their pension accordingly as also recovery. 2 The matter appears to be a simple one with regard to time bound promotion and its cancellation with no complicated question of law stated in the impugned order. By a one line non speaking order the State has generated a litigation running into a brief of 200 pages with more than one counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. The Courts have consistently held that an administrative order having adverse consequences on the employee is required to contain reasons. Reasons have been held to be the mirror to the mind of the authority passing the order. It controls arbitrariness and has been held to be a facet of principle of natural justice. It leaves the citizen satisfied that he was not subjected to the arbitrariness and whims of the authority and the explanation that he had offered was fully considered, but he was unfortunate that the law was against him. Administrative power is not a neked sword to be wielded authoritatively at the whims of the authority. Reasons are the control on the wielding of this administrative sword. If the right to wield the sword be there, the person wielding the sword has a duty. Un-mindfulness of the duty negates his right to use the sword. Learned Counsel for the State finds himself at a complete loss to satisfy this Court prima facie of the justiciability of the order of cancellation from any reason contained therein vis a vis the reasons contained in the order of promotion. He prays that the matter be remanded to the authorities. The Court adjudicates the matter as brought before it. Once an order is set 3 aside it is for the respondents to decide what has to be done on the facts of a case and not for the courts to advise them. What was an exercise to be carried out inside the portals of the Secretariat by all concerned and reasoned orders passed which would have been tested by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has been turned turtle by turning the portals of this Court in to the arena for such administrative adjudication. The order dated 24.5.2003 is accordingly set aside as being non-speaking and arbitrary in nature. On 28.11.2003 this Court had directed that no recovery shall be made. Mr Banerji submits that nonetheless recovery has been made from some of the petitioners. If that be so, let the petitioners bring it to the attention of respondent no. 1 when this Court expects that the respondent shall honour the orders of the court and shall not generate further litigation. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)