CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6323 OF 2000 ( In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ) AMAR KISHORE PRASAD son of Late Mangal Prasad resident of village- Narayanapur, P.O.- Malkauli- Pathkauli Anchal Bagha- 2, P.S. Bagha, District- West Champaran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT 3. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE 4. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 5. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 6. THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN For The Petitioner : Mr.K.K.TIWARY, Advocate Mr. Abhitabh Kumar, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, JC to AAG1 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA S.K.SINHA,J. Heard the parties. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner today. Petitioner challenges the order of punishment contained in memo no. 609 dated 17.08.1998, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of censure to be recorded in his service book and for the period of suspension he would not get anything more than what he has received as subsistence allowance. Submission of the petitioner is to the effect that the aforesaid order was passed after retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.1997 from the post of Agriculture Advisor in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar. Besides that it is submitted that 2 in the departmental enquiry for the alleged misconduct the enquiry officer did not find the charge proved against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority, the respondent no.4, passed the impugned order, which is absolutely cryptic in nature, without due application of mind. The impugned order does not contain any reason for inflicting the punishment in question. The findings recorded therein are absolutely vague in nature, and as such, the same can not be sustained in law. Learned J.C. to A.A.G. I appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner ought to have filed appeal against the impugned order, if he was aggrieved with the same, as the matter involves the examination of disputed questions of fact. It is also submitted that the order passed by the respondent no.4 is valid and correct in law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Besides the above, it is submitted that it would be in the fitness of the matter in case the respondent no.4 is given an opportunity to pass a fresh order. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5, I do not find any reason assigned by the 3 respondent no.4 for passing the impugned order of punishment. There absolutely appears no consideration of the documents said to have been considered by the respondent no.4. In that view of the matter, the order contained in Annexure-5 can not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo no. 609 dated 17.08.1998 is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.4 for passing a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks on receipt/production of the certified copy of this order. The pecuniary benefits, if any, shall abide by the order to be passed by the respondent no.4. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations and directions. The Patna High Court The 06th of January, 2009 Manish/ N.A.F.R. ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)