IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2646 of 2007 Sri Vakil Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Munilal Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla-Ratan Nagar, P.S. & P.O.- Gaya, District-Gaya at present posted as Executive Engineer, office of the Chief Engineer, Design Master planning & Hydrology, Ranchi Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar. 4. The Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. Executive Engineer, Tube-Well Division, Department of Minor Irrigation, Nawada. ------------------- 04. 02.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Assistant Engineer, Tubewell Sub-division No.2, Warsaliganj. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order no. 90 Memo No. 2974 dated 02.07.2002, Annexure-7 whereunder he has been visited with the punishment of censure for the year 1995- 96, stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and no salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Aforesaid punishment has been imposed on the petitioner pursuant to charge sheet alleging that he resided at Nawada in stead of Warsalilganj, the head quarter. The other charge levelled against the petitioner is that he adjusted the advance of Rs. 1.10 lakhs taken in the year 1995 with delay in March, 1997. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order communicated to him by the Deputy Secretary to the 2 Government under letter No. 4659 dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-9 whereunder his appeal filed against order No.90 Memo No.2974 dated 02.07.2002 , Annexure-7, has been rejected. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was filed in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 10.02.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12095 of 2003,Annexure-8 and while considering the appeal, the appellate authority should have given reasons in support of the order rejecting the appeal. Perusal of letter No. 4659 dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-9 indicates that the same is only a communication of the order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. The author of Annexure-9 is the Deputy Secretary who on direction from the appellate authority has communicated the petitioner that his appeal does not merit consideration and the punishment imposed under order no. 90 memo no. 2974 dated 02.07.2002 is not required to be interfered with. The appellate authority while disposing of the appeal is required to consider the grounds taken in support of the appeal by discussing the same in brief as also by indicating as to why the grounds taken in support of the appeal is not being accepted or rejected and the punishment imposed on the delinquent is not required to be interfered with. 4. Petitioner in the instant proceeding has been punished for not residing at the place of head quarter, Warsalilganj in the light of the report of the Secretary of the 3 department referred to in the enquiry report. The other charge levelled against the petitioner that adjustment of the advance made in 1995 was made in March, 1997 has been disputed by the petitioner with reference to the assertion made by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice, Annexure-6. Paragraph “Cha” at internal page 14 of the said reply whereunder petitioner stated that the amount which was adjusted in March, 1997 was of the division for which the Executive Engineer is to be held responsible and not the petitioner. 5. The communication of the appellate order made in letter no.4659 dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-9 does not indicate that the aforesaid two submissions made in support of the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 02.07.2002, Annexure-7 was ever considered by the appellate authority. In order to enable the appellate authority to consider the aforesaid submission I set aside the communication made under letter no. 4659 dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-9 and direct the appellate authority to reconsider the matter and communicate to the petitioner not only the result of the appeal but also the order by which the appeal is disposed of. I may indicate here that petitioner at the relevant time was the Member of the Bihar Engineering Service Class- II his disciplinary authority was perhaps the State Government i.e. Hon’ble Minister. In the circumstances, the appeal is required to be considered by the Council of Ministers or its 4 delegatee Hon’ble the Chief Minister. This aspect of the matter be taken note while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The appellate order should be communicated to the petitioner within two months of the receipt/production of this order before the Secretary of the Department i.e. Minor Irrigation Department of the State Government. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Ravi/- (V.N. Sinha, J.)