IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16052 of 2009 1. GANGADHAR GIRI S/O KESHAWANAND GIRI VILL- KUMNA, P.S. KOPA SAMHOTA, DISTT. SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY MINOR WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY MINOR WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Sri Chitranjan Shiha, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.C. Jha, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Sunil Kr. Karn, A.C. to A.A.G.-6 ------------------ 2. 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 24.6.2008 and the appellate order dated 23.3.2009 in context of a departmental proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both in his reply to the second show cause notice and in the memo of appeal, the petitioner had raised grounds of procedural impropriety in the conduct of the departmental proceedings which have not been considered either in the order of punishment or in the appellate order. In fact, the appellate order is a verbatim reiteration of the order of punishment and contains no reasons displaying application of mind. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade the Court that the matter warrants no interference as the 2 petitioner has been given proper opportunity by a show cause notice before punishment followed by the remedy of appeal. This Court while considering a challenge to an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding is primarily concerned with matters of procedure in the decision making process and infirmity in which warrants interference by the Court. The petitioner appears to have raised issues of procedural impropriety in the conduct of the departmental proceedings both in his reply to the second show cause notice as also in the memo of appeal. Fairness in procedure of decision making, therefore, required the disciplinary authority and thereafter the appellate authority to deal with the allegations of procedural impropriety. The order of punishment is cryptic and does not display of any application of mind to the ground urged by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice with regard to procedural impropriety in the context of the departmental proceedings. The law stands well settled that even an appellate order is required to contain reasons showing application of mind by the appellate authority to the materials before him, the manner of consideration and the reasons for the conclusion. All these are seriously lacking in the appellate order dated 23.3.2009. This Court has gone through the cause shown by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice 3 appended at Annexure 9 series as also the memo of appeal as contained at Annexure-10 series. This Court finds substance in the grievance of the petitioner that his grounds of procedural impropriety in the conduct of the departmental proceedings, have not been considered at any stage. The orders of punishment dated 24.6.2008 as affirmed by the appellate authority dated 23.3.2009 are therefore not sustainable in their present form for reasons as discussed above. They are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice issued to him and pass fresh appropriate orders in accordance with law, with fresh remedy of appeal, being still open to the petitioner. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)