IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16399 of 2009 CHHATRADHARI RAM S/O LATE BARAHAN MISTRY, R/O VILL.- NUTAN NAGAR, P.S.- HAZARIBAGH MOFASSIL, P.O.- ORIYA, DISTT.- HAZARIBAGH, JHARKHAND ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ---Respondents ----------- 9. 6.4.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State as also the Accountant General. The petitioner is aggrieved by Order No.202 dated 16th of July, 2005, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure 5, whereby 15% pension has been deducted on permanent basis said to be under rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the aforesaid order it would appear that admittedly proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was not initiated. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice as per his letter dated 28th of March, 2005, as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application, stating therein to the effect that the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order dated 16.7.2005 (Annexure 5) were thoroughly enquired into by a high level committee and the said committee did 2 not find any lapses on the part of the petitioner and as such later he was allowed promotion to the next higher grade. This apart, further submission is that the impugned order is absolutely non-speaking as there is absolutely no consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner or any other relevant ingredient mentioned justifying the conclusion that the service of the petitioner was unsatisfactory which resulted in deduction of 15% of his pension. Besides, it is submitted that one line statement that the charges have been found proved after examining the show cause is absolutely cryptic and that too without any enquiry. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supports the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 5, whereby 15% pension of the petitioner was deducted/withheld permanently. However, learned counsel could not explain from the impugned order (Annexure 5) that as to under what manner the show cause filed by the petitioner was considered by the competent authority for arriving at the conclusion that the charges no.1 and 2 mentioned in the impugned order were found proved and that too upon consideration of the show cause as there is no discussion in the order in question with regard to the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings as also the impugned order, vide Annexure 5, this Court finds that while passing the order there is absolutely no consideration of the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued as per letter no.1049 dated 3 16.8.2000 as mentioned in the impugned order. Besides, in the order there is no consideration of the relevant materials for arriving at a conclusion that charges no.1 and 2 were found proved. The order being non-speaking, the same, in the opinion of the Court, is not sustainable in law and as such it is, accordingly, quashed. However, it will be open to the competent authority to pass an order afresh in accordance with law considering the show cause and the relevant documents available on the record. In case the competent authority proposes to pass order afresh, the same be passed expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. It is made clear that the monetary benefits, if any, consequent upon quashing of the order shall depend upon the fresh order, if any. However, in the meantime, the admitted dues payable as per rule may be paid. The writ application, thus, stands disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)