IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11012 of 2010 1. Shashi Bhushan Singh S/O Late Chandeshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Raghopur, P.S. Rani Talab, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Undersecretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Onkar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv. ----------------- 3. 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ application was filed originally questioning the order of punishment dated 25.3.2009 imposing compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. The order having been passed by the State Government the petitioner had also preferred a Revision under Rule 28 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟) which has been rejected during the pendency of the writ application on 5.8.2010 assailed in I.A. No. 7630 of 2011. Having heard counsel for the parties, I.A. No. 7630 of 2011 is allowed to shorten the litigation and consider the validity of the Revisional order 2 dated 5.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage raises a short question of law. He submits that Part-VII Rule-27 expressly provides the manner in which an Appeal has to be considered with regard to a major penalty. Compulsory retirement is a major penalty. He next submits that because the order had been passed by the State Government a Revision would lie under Rule 28 before the State Government. Referring to the provisions of Rule-28 he submits that it is virtually an exercise of appellate power. Rule 28(3) clarifies it further by stating in no uncertain terms that a Revision was required to be dealt with in the same manner as an Appeal. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that even while an order of affirmance by the appellate/revisional authority is not required to be very elaborate and lengthy, nonetheless it is required to display application of mind to the allegations, the findings of the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority and the grounds taken in the revision to assail the same before arriving at a fresh finding by at least a brief reasoned discussion why the grounds urged in the revision/appeal were not sustainable. In (2000) 10 SCC 576 (Prakash Chand v. 3 Ratan Chand Saravgi) it has been held at Paragraph- 6 as follows:- “6. Thus, it is seen that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which may be exercised either suo motu or on an application filed by any person aggrieved, entitles the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Rent Controlling Authority, to call for and examine the record and make an appropriate order. The impugned order of the High Court (supra) does not disclose any reasons whatsoever, which weighed with it to dismiss the revision petition by a non- speaking order. The absence of reasons has deprived this Court to appreciate the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the revision petition. Giving of reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its conclusions is much too obvious. Providing of reasons not only lends clarity to the order but also minimises the chances of any arbitrariness and enables the higher forum to test the correctness of the reasons. We are not happy with the manner in which the revision petition was disposed of, since certain arguable points had been raised in the revision petition and particularly, because that was the only remedy available to the tenant under the statute, an appeal being not permissible. The impugned order of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the revision petition to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” 4 The impugned order only states that the revision application had been examined. It was a reiteration of what had been submitted before the enquiry officer and no fact or evidence had been furnished to arrive at any different conclusion. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the discussions contained in the Revisional order how and in what manner application of mind was made to the grounds that may have been urged on behalf of the petitioner in the Revision application. The counter affidavit only reiterates that the Cabinet did not accept the grounds for Revision. The least the Court would have expected was that the counter affidavit may have explained the Cabinet decision in what manner the consideration and deliberation was done leading to the fresh order dated 5.8.2010. There may or may not have been any occasion for the Court then to interfere or not to interfere. The Revisional order dated 5.8.2010 in its present form is therefore not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the revisional authority for passing a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the discussions contained therein. 5 It is expected that such fresh decision by the revisional authority shall be rendered expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)