CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO 12475 OF 1996 *** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *** Alakh Niranjan Tiwari, son of late Sheonath Tiwari, resident of Village – Dhamar, P S – Ara Mufassil, District – Bhojpur -Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 2 The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 3 The Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 4 The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Works Circle, Patna 5 The Executive Engineer, National Road Works Division, Ara now shifted to Patna and renamed as N H West Division, Road Construction Department, Patna -Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Awadhesh Kr Mishra, Anay Kr Mishra, Arun Kr Mandal, B S Mishra, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr S C X *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH Navaniti Prasad Singh, J The petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Assistant Engineer, National Highway Subdivision, Ara under Executive Engineer, Ara in the Road Construction Department. The National Highway between Ara and Mohania was to be fully relaid. Contract was given. There was one contract for supplying sand for filling up the area being Agreement No 33 H of 1978-79. The dispute relates to alleged short 2 supply of sand by the said contractor which is being sought to be recovered from the petitioner by the impugned order dated 28.05.1996 (Annexure-1). The petitioner had assailed the impugned order of the Government ordering recovery of Rs 18,963/- from the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that it is a non-speaking order and secondly, that the records would show that everyone had in fact held the Junior Engineer one B K Sinha responsible for the alleged irregularity but suddenly he had been let off without any cogent reason and in 1990, after 11 years, petitioner was proceeded against and the impugned order passed. In the counter affidavit, inspite of specific plea that there is no order with reasons, nothing has been brought on record to show that any reasoned order or speaking order was passed by any authority in that regard. Factual justifications have been given in the counter affidavit justifying imposition of penalty. In the counter affidavit, there is no reply to the specific allegation that for some undisclosed reason, suddenly the authorities started proceeding against the petitioner whereas the authorities were firmly of the opinion that the default, if any, was of Shri Sinha, the Junior Engineer at the site. Heard the parties. In my view, the writ application must succeed. It is now well settled that any order which is passed against a person must be passed in consonance of principles of natural justice and one of the facets thereof is that the order must be a reasoned order. Reasons are the link between the facts found and the decision taken. It shows the link between the two. In the present case, the only order that has been brought on 3 record is that the State is satisfied that the petitioner is liable to make good the loss. How, when and why the petitioner has been made liable is not there in the order. Even though this matter was specifically put to challenge, in the counter affidavit, no record has been produced nor any order appended which shows that the show cause, as filed by the petitioner, was duly considered and for definite and cogent reasons, petitioner’s show cause was rejected and the order of recovery of money passed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, being an order passed in a quasi judicial proceeding, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. It is set aside as such. There is yet another reason for setting aside the order. As the fact would show that the sand supply was made in the year, 1978-79. Immediately before the bills were settled, it was discovered that there was a short supply. There are several correspondences annexed in the writ application which are not disputed or denied in the counter affidavit wherein right upto the Executive Engineer, it was clearly pointed out that the mistake was squarely of the Junior Engineer at the site. He was responsible for preparing, marking and entering the measurement books. He had not followed the procedure correctly and the rest of the officers had acted upon his report but suddenly, after more than 10 years by when the petitioner had become an Executive Engineer elsewhere and posted elsewhere, he was asked to explain as to why he be not held responsible. Petitioner was not even told why all of a sudden the then Junior Engineer was left and how he was being roped in. The only explanation given in 4 the counter affidavit is that petitioner, alongwith other officers, had not followed the procedure as per PWD Code but how was the clear finding of the Executive Engineer, finding the Junior Engineer responsible got over is not disclosed. In that view of the matter, I find that there was no sufficient material available on record to record the finding as has been done. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The amount, as realised from the petitioner, shall be liable to be refunded. (Navaniti Prasad Singh) Patna High Court, The 20th of February, 2011 N A F R, M E Haque/