IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9797 of 2003 Md.Qaiyum Ansari, Son of Late Md. Moizuddin, Resident of Village Mozakka, P.O. Wazirpur, Police Station Vikram, District Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Ganga and Sone Flood Protection Circle, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Circle Khagaul, Patna. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sone Canal, Bikram, District Patna. ----------- Respondents ----------- 4 8.1.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order of the Bihar Govt. contained in letter No.698 dated 24.3.2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna by which the Departmental appeal of the petitioner against the departmental order no. 1747 dated 4.6.1998, has mot arbitrarily been dismissed without considering the merit of the case. (ii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order of the 2 Departmental punishment vide letter no. 1747 dated 4.6.1998 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna by which the petitioner was awarded two punishment:- (i) Revocation of Suspension after recording “the punishment of Warning”. (ii) Withholding and non-payment of salary for the period of suspension except (subsistence allowance) i.e. from 10.3.1997 to 4.6.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned appellate order as contained in Anenxure-1 does not contain any reason nor does it reflect any application of mind. He would accordingly submit that the affirmation of the order of punishment by the appellate order having been not made by complying the principle of natural justice, this Court should now also quash the order of punishment dated 4th June, 1998 inflicting punishment of censor/warning and denial of salary for the period of suspension beyond the subsistence allowance. Counsel for the State, with reference to the issues raised by the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it is true that 3 the appellate order is a bald and non-speaking order but, then, there is no substantial punishment inflicting upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, a warning or censure on him in the given facts and circumstance cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. He would further submit that as the petitioner was not fully exonerated from the charges, he was not entitled for payment of salary for the period of suspension. In the opinion of this Court, counsel for the petitioner is correct in assailing the impugned appellate order on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Whenever an appeal is filed by a delinquent against an order of punishment assailing its correctness, the appellate authority is under bounden duty to apply his independent mind by examining and deciding pleas raised by the delinquent in the memo of appeal. Such application of mind by the appellate authority therefore would also require a reasoned appellate order. This aspect of the matter is also well settled in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of 4 India & Ors. reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 1173. In the present case as the appellate order does not deal with any of the contentions raised by the petitioner nor does it reflect any independent application of mind as also the appellate order does not contain any reason, the same cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. Normally, on having quashed the appellate order only on the ground of its being not a speaking order, the matter could have been remitted but taking into account that the petitioner has already retired and the punishment to him of warning/censure for the misconduct in question, cannot be approved, inasmuch as, the petitioner was holding the post of Mate and could not have defied the instruction of his superior, the Executive Engineer and as such, it would be very difficult for this Court to hold that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and consequently, also approve the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority. As the order of punishment of warning/censure is based on non-est and non-existing facts, the 5 same must also be hereby quashed and consequently the impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure-2 is also hereby quashed. The charges having been not proved against the petitioner, the petitioner will also be entitled for full payment of salary of the period of suspension beyond the subsistence allowance already paid to him. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned orders contained in Annexure-1 and 2 are quashed with a direction to the respondents to make payment of balance amount of salary for the period of suspension beyond the subsistence allowance within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)