IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6974 of 2001 YOGENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 9.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 6.5.1997 as modified by the order dated 26.6.2000. In pursuance of proceedings under rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules for imposition of minor punishment a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He filed his reply. Originally he was visited with the punishment of entry of censure in the service book from the year1992-93 and denial of consideration of promotion for five years which was subsequently reduced to three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non- availability of water in the canal even after repair which finds mention in the order of punishment was not the subject mater of the show cause under rule 55 A. The order of punishment is therefore vitiated for traveling beyond the show cause notice. Punishment for a reason not finding reference in the show cause notice is not sustainable in law and violates the basic tenets of natural justice amounting to condemnation without hearing. Even in case of a minor punishment, after the employee files his show cause, the Disciplinary authority is required to briefly discuss the allegations, the defence and then record a conclusion as to why the explanation was not acceptable. - 2 - The law stands settled that even for imposition of a minor punishment there has to be a finding of guilt. The need to give reasons controls arbitrariness and this becomes all the more important when the punishment travels beyond the memo of charges. It becomes difficult to separate the grain from the chaff to uphold the order of punishment in such a case. In the facts of the present case, in absence of reasons, the petitioner does not have the satisfaction of proper consideration of his defence which manifests arbitrariness and hinders judicial review. For that reason and also that the order of punishment travels beyond the show cause, the order of punishment dated 6.5.1997 as modified by the order dated 26.6.2000 are both not sustainable. The orders are quashed. The writ application stands allowed. shahid (Navin Sinha,J )