IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1754 of 2010 1. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM SHARAM GARAIN R/O PATEL NAGAR, BEHIND GIRLS' HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.SOHSARAI, P.S.SOHSARAI, DISTT-NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. JOINT SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. SECRETARY, RURAL DEELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 5. UNDER SECRETARY, PERSONNAL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA ----------- 2. 3.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On 11.9.2007 the petitioner was suspended for alleged non-joining at the place of transfer. On 22.10.2007 departmental proceedings were ordered and memo of charge issued on 18.1.2008 to which the petitioner replied on 25.2.2008. On consideration of his show cause, the order dated 17.3.2009 imposing minor punishment for stoppage of two increments with non- cumulative effect and that nothing beyond the subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension was passed when his suspension was also revoked. The petitioner preferred a review application which has been rejected in like manner on 15.9.2009. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission that both the order of punishment dated 17.3.2009 and the review order dated 15.9.2009 suffered from the same vice and contain no reasons or discussion displaying application of mind to the cause shown by the petitioner in his defence. The orders are therefore arbitrary. Counsel for the State urged that ultimately a minor punishment had been imposed. All that was required was a show cause and reply to the same which has been considered. The contention of the State does not appeal to the Court and shall not meet the requirements of the law, to render it a dead letter. Undoubtedly, an order of minor punishment has been imposed. There may not have been any need for a major departmental proceeding. Nonetheless, the petitioner in his reply to the memo of charges dated 25.2.2008 had raised a defence relying upon certain documentary evidences also. The defence taken by him had to be considered and either accepted or rejected. If it was to be accepted, no reasons may have been required. If it was to be rejected, it was to the prejudice of the petitioner. In that event even in case of minor punishment rejecting the cause shown, reasons have to 3 be set out as to why the cause shown was not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16400 of 2009 which considers the issue as follows:- “For imposition of minor punishment all that is required is to give a show cause notice, consider the cause shown and then pass a speaking order displaying application of mind to the charges made and the cause shown to arrive at a finding. There must be a brief discussion in the final order displaying transparency with regard to application of mind to the materials on record and on the basis of which findings are made of either to accept the cause shown or reject the cause shown. This has been considered necessary by the courts as a facet of the principles of natural justice. This process of reasoning has been held to be the ultimate control upon arbitrariness in order to impose minor punishment. If an order contains no discussion or reason the matter is left to the uncontrolled authority to pass an order on his own. A citizen is left without satisfaction that the cause shown by him has been appropriately considered but was found not unacceptable.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, where the authorities have persisted in passing an arbitrary unreasoned order notwithstanding that the petitioner also took recourse to the alternative remedy of review before them prior to approach this Court, the Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 17.3.2009 and 15.9.2009 are clearly not sustainable in law. They are accordingly set aside. 4 The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits to be complied with within a maximum period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)