IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9839 of 2005 Manokamna Bhakt, Son of Late Ramchandra Bhakt, Resident of Village Dahiyawa, Police Station Town Thana, Chapra, District (Chapra). -------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Bhagalpur. ----------- Respondent ----------- 2 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders for quashing the order dated 01.09.2003 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of Respondent no.2 by which the Respondent no.2 review his earlier order and stopped the salary of the Petitioner from 26.12.2002 to 28.04.2003 and further quashed the order dated 01.03.2003 by which the Respondent no.2 informed the Petitioner the appeal filed by the Petitioner rejected by the Respondent no.1 without giving any reason and further for any other relief for which the Petitioner is entitled in the fact and circumstances of this case.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that the decision of the authorities to withhold payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 26.12.2002 to 28.04.2003 is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, the authorities had imposed a punishment of warning and therefore, it was not open for them to also withhold payment of salary for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact has also gone to make a submission that when all these issues were raised by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority, he had somehow referred to the stand of the petitioner in the explanation submitted by him in course of enquiry wherein the petitioner seems to have accepted his guilt and had assured that he would not commit the same mistake again in future. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that this would not amount to an admission on his part so as to be given punishment of withholding of payment of salary and in fact that must remain confined to the punishment of warning. He would also 3 submit that the appellate order as contained in Annexure-9 to this application is a bald and cryptic order and does not contain any reason. Learned counsel for the State in fact would refer to the pleadings in the writ application to make his point that when the petitioner had himself admitted before the enquiry officer as with regard to the misconduct in question with a further assurance of not repeating in future, he cannot be heard to say that the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary as a matter of right. In this context he would refer to the provisions of Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code, which contemplate full payment of salary only in the event of exoneration of the charges in the departmental proceeding as a result whereof, the order of suspension pending enquiry becomes unjustified. In the opinion of this Court, while much cannot be said about the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 to this writ application and the findings recorded and the 4 petitioner admitting the guilt, the appellate order in absence of any reason would definitely give this much scope for the petitioner that he may re-agitate the matter before the appellate authority. The appellate authority in a quasi judicial proceeding, which would include a departmental proceeding, is under obligation to record reasons in support of his conclusions. The present appellate order as contained in Annexure-9 however contains no reason and therefore, this Court would quash the appellate order as contained in Annexure-9 and remit the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be however made clear that this Court while quashing the appellate order has not decided the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and the correctness of the order of punishment (Annexure-7) has to be decided only by the appellate authority in accordance of law. With the aforementioned observations and 5 directions, this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)