IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.432 of 2010 1. BINDESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE SUKRESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- BEW AREA, BISHAL TALAB, GAYA, P.S.- CIVIL LINE, DISTT.- GAYA 2. RAM NARESH PRASAD S/O LATE DIBBU SINGH R/O VILL.- PACHAMBA, P.S.- NIMCHAK BATHANI, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR ESTABLISHMENT, GAYA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ESTABLISHMENT, GAYA 5. THE INCHARGE LOKAYUKTA CELL, GAYA COLLECTORIATE, GAYA ----------- 5. 4.5.2010 I.A. No. 2333 of 2010 has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal of approximately 337 days. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that in the interest of justice the delay deserves to be condoned. The I.A. application stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. On a complaint with regard to certain allegations of demanding illegal gratification against others, the Lokayukta directed the District Magistrate, Gaya to be present before him with the necessary papers. An alleged delay on part of the appellants as the Head Clerk and the Clerk in putting up the proposed reply on behalf of the District Magistrate to the Lokayukta before their superior in course of 2 placement before the District Magistrate led to a show cause notice to them dated 20.6.2007, replied on the same date after which final order of punishment withholding one increment with cumulative effect was passed against appellant no. 1 and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was passed against appellant no. 2. The latter punishment has been modified by the appellate authority to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect by order dated 16.10.2008 in Appeal No. 76 of 2007. The judgment under appeal holds that there was no flaw in the decision making process as show cause notice was given, replied to and duly considered. The appellate authority had discussed the pleas of the petitioners with regard to the order of the original authority being non-speaking. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order of the Collector being non-speaking in nature stood vitiated. The appellate authority affirmed the non-speaking order of the Collector without giving any separate reason as to how he stepped into the mind of the Collector to decipher the reasoning of the Collector by simply holding that the petitioners should have realized the sensibility of the issue which led to the District Magistrate being admonished by the Lokayukta. 3 Learned counsel for the State found it difficult to demonstrate from the original order of punishment passed by the Collector dated 17.7.2007, disclosing consideration of the cause shown and the thought process of reasoning why the cause shown by the petitioners were not acceptable and how the appellate authority by unraveling the mind of the District Magistrate arrived at the conclusion of affirmance. An administrative order having civil consequences leading to imposition of punishment is required to be preceded not only by a show cause notice but by a reasoned order displaying application of mind to the cause shown. The right to be heard is one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. Another facet is the passing of a reasoned order. A reasoned order effectively controls arbitrariness. It is also reflective of what was passing the mind of the authority, why the explanation given was not acceptable leading to the imposition of punishment. Reasons have been held to lend transparency to the order leaving the citizen satisfied that his case was properly considered. The order of the District Magistrate dated 17.7.2007 simply states that the cause shown by the appellants had been considered and found unsatisfactory. What was the consideration done, the process of reasoning and 4 thinking that passed the mind of the District Magistrate when he considered the allegations and the defence raised by the appellants is left in the mind of the District Magistrate alone who abruptly concluded that it was not acceptable to him. There is no discussion why it was not acceptable to him. The appellate authority likewise records that it finds no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the District Magistrate. Again there is no discussion of the satisfaction of the appellate authority of what passed the mind of the District Magistrate, how he entered the mind of the District Magistrate to understand what was the consideration done by the latter to uphold the order. On a consideration of the appellate order, we are satisfied that the prime reason to uphold the order of the District Magistrate is the satisfaction of the appellate authority that the District Magistrate had been put to inconvenience and a show cause notice had been issued to him by the Lokayukta for lack of good administration. The findings appear to be driven more by ire than law. We are satisfied that both the District Magistrate and the appellate authority have only sought to vent their ire on the Clerk and the Head Clerk. Learned counsel for the State urged that the 5 matter may be remanded to the authorities. Appellant No. 1 is stated to have retired. The flaw in the decision making process rested with the respondents. The appellants have diligently pursued the matter in appeal also. The allegations are not serious. We have already discussed that it was more in the nature of venting of ire of the superior against the subordinate. In the entirety of the matter, we are not satisfied that the matter calls for remand. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The order of punishment dated 17.7.2007 and the appellate order dated 16.10.2008 are held unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. The appeal stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)