IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15857 of 2009 1. RATAN KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI PRADEEP NR. SINGH R/O L-2/25, SRI KRISHNA PURI, P.S.SRI KRISHNA PURI, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 2. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 3. JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 5. ENGINEER IN CHIEF , WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 6. CHIEF ENGINEER, HEAD QUARTER BIRPUR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 7. SUPERTENDING ENGINEER, BARRAJ CIRCLE, BIRPUR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHICHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 22.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally and on an alleged finding of guilt was awarded punishment of censure, stoppage of promotion for next five years and that for the period of suspension nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable, which would otherwise be counted for other purposes of service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order, which came to be rejected on the ground of limitation leading to the institution of CWJC No. 9218 of 2009 disposed on 4.8.2009. This Court disposed the writ application leaving all questions including whether it was the Deputy Secretary or the Engineer-in-Chief, who was competent to hear the appeal etc. open. The appellate order was set aside and directions were given to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof has followed the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 by which the appellate authority has modified the punishment to now read as censure for the year 1988- 89 and stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate order is non-speaking in nature, displays no consideration to the grounds urged in the memo of appeal. The issue of the authority competent to hear the appeal noticed by this Court in the earlier order finds no reference. Additionally, the petitioner at paragraph 18 & 21 of his memo of appeal at Annexure-14 had specifically raised the issue that other co- delinquents who were also punishment and who are higher in rank to the petitioner have been given the benefit of subsequent exoneration. These are also supported in his pleadings in the writ application. The appellate order does not deal with these issues at all. Learned counsel for the State urges that if the appellate order suffers from any procedural irregularities, the matter may be remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It has repeatedly been held by judicial pronouncements and is an integral part of the duty of quasi judicial as also administrative authority, not only to grant an opportunity to the person likely to be affected by adverse consequences of such an order, but that to give reasons, which is an integral part of the natural justice also. An appellate order may not be required to be as elaborate and reasoned as an original order. Nonetheless, the appellate order is required to contain, albeit, a brief discussion of the nature of the allegations, the defence, the findings of the 3 original authority, the grounds of the memo of appeal and the conclusion of the appellate authority. This has been considered necessary to hold the appellate authority bound by principles of law requiring independent application of mind by him. Any deviation of this procedure followed by the appellate authority, and an order contrary to the same shall vitiate the final order as suffering from arbitrariness. In the present case, this Court found error in the appellate order and remanded the matter. The facet of Article 14 of the Constitution in a departmental proceedings where some of the co-delinquents are exonerated and responsibility is sought to be fixed individually are matters to be necessarily considered as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Man Singh versus Sate of Haryana & ors., (2008) 12 SCC 331. If the Respondents insist on repeatedly passing orders contrary to law in what they consider as their administrative discretion not bound by law, this Court has little option but to set aside such illegal orders. This Court is not persuaded to give any advantage to the Respondents for their own repeated lapses to subject the petitioner to continued harassment by repeated orders of remand. The order dated 30.10.2009 is, accordingly, set aside. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)