IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8841 of 2010 1. Binod Bihari Sharma S/O Late Sudama Prasad Singh R/O Village + Post- Mahajpura, P.S.- Bikra, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. That State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Null R.C.D. (Road Construction Department), Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary R.C.D. (Road Construction Department), Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary R.C.D. (Road Construction Department), Bihar, Patna 4. The Engineer-In-Chief R.C.D. (Road Construction Department), Bihar, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer, N.H. (Sub-Wing) R.C.D. (Road Construction Department), Bihar, Patna 6. The Superintendent Engineer N.H. Circle, Dihari-On-Sone, Bihar 7. The Executive Engineer N.H. Division, Aurangabad, Distt.- Aurangabad 8. Deputy Secretary-Cum-Chief Vigilance Officer R.C.D. (Road Construction Department), Bihar, Patna ----------- 4. 14.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and orders for minor punishment passed on 31.12.2007. It may only be noticed that the enquiry report exonerated him when matters proceeded on a difference of opinion on a second show cause notice replied to whereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed. It appears from the pleadings, more particularly at Paragraph-12 read with Annexure-7 that he has preferred an Appeal before the Minister Incharge, Road Construction Department, Patna on 10.8.2008 which is still pending before the respondents. 2 The respondents in their counter affidavit affirmed by the Under Secretary (Vigilance) Road Construction Department seek to suggest that they have not received any Appeal/application of the petitioner. Be that as it may, since there is a statutory remedy of appeal and the petitioner claims to have availed the same, of which the Court is prima facie satisfied in view of the memorandum of appeal annexed to the pleadings, let the appeal if not already disposed, be considered and disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Court may only reiterate that even an appellate authority is required to give reasons in it order displaying application of mind and it is not permissible for the appellate authority to pass an unreasoned, cryptic and non-speaking order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)