IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13848 of 2009 BAIDYA NATH SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 04/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who held the post of Correspondence Clerk, was granted the benefit of A.C.P. on 30.5.2007. A show cause notice was issued to him on 26.4.2008 why it should not be withdrawn as he had not cleared the departmental examination. The petitioner submitted his reply in which he explicitly stated that he did not clear it on the first occasion, but that he had appeared twice subsequently in 2007 and in 2008. Additionally that he had crossed the age of 50 years and was, therefore, entitled to exemption which had been forwarded through the Executive Engineer, High Way Division, Motihari on 17.1.2007 with recommendation in his favour. He was not aware of the results of the successive two departmental examinations he had appeared in and neither was he aware of the fate of his exemption application. The respondents then passed an order on 1.6.2009 stating that the cause shown by him did not merit consideration as he had not produced any evidence in support of the same. 2 There is no discussion on facts of the grounds taken in his reply to the show cause notice. It is apparent that the grounds are issues of facts which could well be verified from the official records of the respondents themselves instead of calling upon the petitioner to produce evidence from official records already available with the respondents. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7664/09 which was disposed with liberty to approach the Engineer-in-Chief of the Department. Having done so the fresh impugned order has now been passed on 17.9.2009. It states that he had not cleared the departmental examination and, therefore, the cancellation of A.C.P. granted to him was good. This Court presently is not concerned with the decision on its merits, but is more concerned with the decision making process and on which the issues of applicability of law shall arise. If the petitioner had shown cause and had taken specific grounds that he had appeared twice in the successive examinations, the results of which were not known to him and additionally that his application for exemption on account of age from the departmental examination had been recommended, all that the impugned order was required to deal with is a brief discussion with regard to 3 these two aspects. The refusal of the respondents to deal with the relevant issues and declining to take the same into consideration and passing orders thereupon renders the order arbitrary as it excludes relevant materials from consideration. The respondents initially passed an order not dealing with the cause shown on 1.6.2009. The present impugned order dated 18.9.2009 also suffers from the same infirmity. If, despite the orders of this Court the respondents insist on their right to pass orders contrary to law, when reasoned discussion is the heart and soul of an order controlling arbitrariness on part of the State authorities, this Court finds it very difficult to sustain the order dated 18.9.2009. It is accordingly set aside. Nothing in this order shall be deemed to be a restraint on the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law to facilitate judicial review should the need arise for the same. The superannuation of the petitioner on 30.6.2009 shall also be a relevant consideration at this stage. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)