1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17728 of 2009 ADITYA NARAYAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 26/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 11.5.2009 allegedly on grounds of his failure to meet revenue collection target. He replied the same on 30.5.2009. The final order of punishment of ‘censure’ has been passed on 11.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is non-speaking in nature disclosing no reasons why the cause shown by him was not acceptable. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has already filed an application for review of the order, and, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed off to decide the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that if the initial order of punishment dated 11.9.2009 is not in consonance with law, a futile review cannot fetter the hands of the writ Court. In normal circumstances, once the 2 petitioner has filed a review petition himself, this Court could have denied interference on that ground alone. Nonetheless, the order of punishment has been passed at the Government level and the review application is required to be considered at the Government level. The likelihood of administrative bias at the same level, a natural corollary, to uphold the impugned order cannot be ruled out. That would render the review application a futility. For imposing of a minor punishment, the giving of a show cause notice and consideration of the cause shown is sufficient. The order is nonetheless a quasi judicial order amenable to judicial review. Even while imposing a minor punishment, the authority is required to at least briefly indicate the nature of the charge, the thinking and reasoning passing its mind on the grounds of the show cause notice with the cause shown by the delinquent, and then record its conclusion by a reasoning why the cause shown be not accepted. To decline interference with an unreasoned order on the ground that the punishment was minor, may vest un-canalized power in the administrative authority to reject the cause shown even if there be no sufficient justification for such 3 rejection. Reasons are the very heart and soul of an order and are the ultimate control on administrative arbitrariness. It also leaves the delinquent satisfied that his defence has been properly considered, but that unfortunately the law was against him. Reasons are a facet of the principles of natural justice. The order of punishment being contrary to law, no useful purpose shall be served by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of review. The order of punishment dated 11.9.2009 is set aside. The proceedings are remanded to proceed afresh from the stage that the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Let the respondents now pass a reasoned and speaking order on the cause shown by him within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order to facilitate judicial review should the need arise. The application is allowed to the extent indicated. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)