IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13233 of 2010 1. DHIRENDRA KUMAR S/O RAJESHWAR RAM R/O VILL.- BELAON, P.S. BELAON, P.O. KHARENDA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA) 2. KUMARI PRATIBHA SINGH D/O SHIV PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- BELAON, P.S. BELAON, P.O. KHARENDA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA) 3. ANITA VERMA KHARWAR D/O RAJESHWAR RAM R/O VILL.- BELAON, P.S. BELAON, P.O. KHARENDA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA) 4. AARTI KUMARI D/O VIJAY KUMAR RAM R/O VILL.- BELAON, P.S. BELAON, P.O. KHARENDA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR (BHABHUA) 3. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, KAIMUR (BHABHUA) 4. SHAILENDRA KUMAR BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAMPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABHUA), NOW TRANSFERRED AT SUPAUL, DISTT.- SUPAUL ----------- 3. 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2010 passed by the Block Development Officer, Rampur Block, district Kaimur (Bhabhua) one Shailendra Kumar stated to be presently posted at Kaimur cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner along with their entire ancestors. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents affirmed by the now incumbent Block Development Officer. At this stage, the Court is primarily concerned with the decision making process and not the decision itself. The petitioners assert in 2 Paragraph-12 of the writ application that no notice had been issued to them much less they were heard before the impugned order was passed. This has not been denied in Paragraph-24 of the counter affidavit when its states that “ the order under challenge was passed within the knowledge and information of the petitioner after considering the entire documents/Revenue record”. To the Court, that is an explicit admission of an ex parte order making it unsustainable in law. There is another more important aspect of the matter. Power inheres not in the individual but in the officer placed in trust by the Government to be exercised in accordance with law. Any reckless exercise of such power given in trust invites answerability and accountability on the officer concerned in his individual capacity. The impugned order dated 2.7.2010 is set aside. Any enquiry with regard to the caste status of the petitioners shall be held strictly in accordance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court in (1994) 6 SCC 241 as modified in (1997) 4 SCC 271. During the course of such enquiry the committee shall also enquire into the conduct of the then incumbent, respondent no. 4, why an ex-parte 3 order was passed by him after due opportunity to him also. Based on the findings in any such report that may surface, quite naturally it shall call for further administrative/disciplinary action against the concerned in accordance with law, circumstances so warranting. The impugned order dated 2.7.2010 is set aside. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)