IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6163 of 2001 MD. ALI HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 05.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.1993 visiting him with the punishment of censure to be entered in his character roll for the year 1991-92, recovery of a sum of Rs.. 1,38,868/- for alleged loss caused to the government and originally stoppage of seven increments with cumulative effect but subsequently modified by order dated 29.11.1996 to read as non- cumulative effect. The punishments to be imposed on a government servant may be major or minor. Depending on the nature of the proposed punishment different procedures are required to be followed. While major punishment entails a regular departmental enquiry, for a minor punishment the issuance of a show cause, the reply to the same and appropriate consideration of the reply before passing of order of punishment are only required. It is not in controversy that in pursuance of a show cause notice issued to the petitioner he submitted his reply. From the show cause notice at Annexure 6 and the reply to the same submitted by the petitioner on 16.7.1991 at Annexure 7 this Court is satisfied that the petitioner had adequately dealt with the allegations against him which were required to be considered and disposed by a speaking order spelling out the reasons why the explanation given by the petitioner were not acceptable. To this Court, at this stage, the objections raised by the petitioner in his reply were in context of the grounds on which the show cause was founded and were not extraneous or irrelevant. The respondents were therefore required to briefly discuss the allegations against the petitioner, the reply given by him and after consideration of the same demonstrating application of mind a conclusion was to be recorded as to why the explanation given was not acceptable and the grounds for the same. In the present case, it is apparent on the face of the impugned order that this procedure has not been followed. Merely because the proceedings were under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules the respondents have thought it sufficient, by what the Courts have referred to as rhetorical incantation to state that his reply had been examined and the authorities were satisfied that he was required to be punished. That was not proper compliance of the procedure to be followed for a minor punishment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has equally been disposed in a casual and perfunctory manner. It has been repeatedly held in judicial pronouncements that an appellate authority is required to briefly discuss the case against the delinquent, the grounds raised by the delinquent in his appeal and then by independent application of mind albeit even by a brief discussion to demonstrate that the appellate authority has applied his independent mind so that the delinquent may have full satisfaction that his case was duly considered quite apart from facilitating judicial review. All these are completely lacking in the appellate order dated 29.11.1996. Considering that the punishment was minor in nature this Court does not consider it necessary to remand the matter. The impugned order of punishment dated 31.12.1993 as modified by order dated 29.11.1996 is hereby quashed. The writ application stands allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the monetary benefits of the increments withheld to be given to him within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Any recovery made from the petitioner shall have to be refunded to him within the same period as indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)