IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.292 of 2010 1. Gupteshwar Prasad S/O Late Gopalji Prasad R/O Vill & P.S.Dumraon, Distt-Buxar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary To The Government , Department Of Finance , Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary-Cum -Commissioner Commercial Taxes , Bihar, Patna with CWJC No.326 of 2010 1. Pritam Kumar Singh S/O Sri Rama Kant Singh R/O Vill & P.O. Morsanda, P.S. Falka, Distt. Katihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary To The Govt. Deptt. Of Finance, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. ------------- 3. 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of punishments dated 5.10.2009 and 13.10.2008 respectively visiting them with censure to be entered in their character roll for the years 2007-08. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response to the show cause notice after the reply was filed even for a minor punishment there has to be a reasoned order. Counsel for the State submitted that being a minor punishment the procedure by giving of a show cause notice and consideration of the reply has been followed. The impugned order in no uncertain 2 term states that reply had been considered. The punishment in any event was minor in nature when the petitioners failed to meet collection targets. The show cause notice was issued on 11.5.2009/4.4.2008. Rule 19 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 imposes a statutory duty on the respondents to pass an order recording findings on imputation of misconduct. The Rule therefore makes it explicit that the final order must contain reasons. Reasons have been held to be the very heart and soul of an order giving an insight into the mind of the maker that the defence of the delinquent had been considered. If the defence was not acceptable, the delinquent before he is to be visited with punishment has a right, inherent in the concept of natural justice, to know why his defence it was not accepted. He has a right to know why he has lost. It is not the ipsi dixit of the disciplinary authority but the regulation controlling his powers which requires him to give reasons. An order without reasons is arbitrary. It also hinders judicial review. A non speaking order cannot be explained in a counter affidavit. Even if this Court were to permit the same in the present case, the counter affidavit is of no help as it does not discuss why the defence given by the 3 petitioner was not acceptable. The order of punishments dated 5.10.2009 and 13.10.2008 are accordingly set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents. The writ applications stand allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)