IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9628 of 2005 PURUSHOTTAM SINGH, Son of Sri Baikunth Singh, Resident of Village Shiv Nagar, Police Station Karpi, District Arwal, presently posted as Forest Range Officer, Bausi, District Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2.The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, patna. 3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna. 4.The Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna. 5.The Conservator of Forest Cum Enquiry Officer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur. 6.The Conservator of Forest Cum Enquiry Officer, Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur. 7.The Conservator of Forest Cum Circle Director Cum Conducting Officer, Balmiki Tiger Project, Champaran Betiah. 8.The Division Forest Officer, Forest Extension Division, Saharsa. ----------- 2 8/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order bearing memo no.556, dated 7.2.2004 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application, the Respondent no.3 imposed the major punishment without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard and without any proper show cause and without assigning any reason the order of punishment has been passed 2 and further quashing the order bearing memo no.3265 dated 22.11.2004 contained in Annexure-2, by which the Respondent no.1 reject the Appeal filed by the petitioner on technical ground without considering the Appeal on merit and further for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to the facts and circumstances of the case.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would first draw attention towards the appellate order for the purpose of showing the complete mechanical application of mind by the appellate authority. Counsel, in fact, has also contended that from the appellate order it would be also clear that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal merely on a technical ground. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that he should be given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit. This Court would refuse to grant any further time taking into account that this writ application was filed on 8.8.2005 after serving two copies of the brief in the office of the Advocate General and if the period of four and half years is not good enough for filing the counter affidavit, this Court cannot be expected to keep on waiting for the respondents to file reply affidavit, which ought to have been done much earlier. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court 3 finds that counsel for the petitioner is correct, inasmuch as, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal in a most mechanical and perfunctory manner by holding that the memo of appeal before him was not filed in keeping with the provisions of Rules 4 to 11 of Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules without being specific to alleged violation of any particular Rule. The appellate order infact a cryptic and non-speaking order and cannot be upheld in absence of any discussion and findings on the issues raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. The appellate authority as a final authority is not only supposed to go into the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding by the disciplinary authority but he has to also examine them in the light of defence of the petitioner raised by him in the memo of appeal. There being however absolutely no discussion in the appellate order, muchless, any reason for rejecting the pleas of the petitioner in his memo of appeal this Court is constrained to hold that the appellate authority has passed a wholly perfunctory order which cannot be sustained in law. That being so, as the appellate order is wholly misconceived the same is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority, namely, the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department, who must decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh within a period of 4 four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by a reasoned order dealing with each and every contention raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. Let it be however made clear that this Court has not interfered with the order of punishment for the time being as all the issues are to be decided by the appellate authority. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)