IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12749 of 2009 SHIV MURAT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 7.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer was proceeded with departmentally and final orders of punishment passed on 19.3.97. His appeal was dismissed on 5.5.2004. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11293 of 2006. This Court (at Annexure-8) noticed the manner in which the respondents had proceeded to conduct the departmental proceedings in a manner unknown to law, compounded by the appellate authority also evolving his own procedures contrary to law. This Court therefore quashed the order of punishment and appeal and remanded the matter to proceed afresh from the stage of filing explanation to the charges. Learned counsel submits that in the fresh proceeding the enquiry report submitted on 7.8.2008 was of exoneration. No doubt the disciplinary authority was empowered to differ with the enquiry report. But in that event, the disciplinary authority was required to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the finding of exoneration along with the prima facie materials for the same. The disciplinary authority then issued notice for difference of opinion. The petitioner submitted his reply. The fresh order of punishment dated 2.7.2009 then came to be passed without 2 any discussion or reasoning why the explanation furnished by the petitioner on the difference of opinion by the disciplinary authority was not acceptable. Learned counsel for the State submits that if there has been a procedural irregularity in the impugned order, the matter may be remanded for passing fresh order by the disciplinary authority. Reasons have been held to be the heart and soul of an order, controlling arbitrariness and facilitating judicial review. Reasons are also a facet of natural justice. An order without reasons renders the same perse arbitrary and unsustainable. The facts reveal that the petitioner has been exposed to departmental proceeding initiated in 1992 orders of punishment in 1993, compelling him to approach this Court. It was then remanded, whereafter the respondents have again passed an order unsustainable in law. The petitioner has been exposed to the vagaries of the respondents and subjected to repeated harassment. A remand at this stage shall be giving an advantage to the respondents for their own lapses. This Court is not persuaded to do so. This opinion is further reinforced by the fact that the order of punishment finally passed is minor in nature. In the result, the impugned order of punishment dated 2.7.2009 is accordingly quashed. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)