IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7629 of 2002 BASANT RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner: Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhaya For the State : Mr. Pritesh Kumar Lal J.C. TO S.C.11 For the Acct. General: Mr. J.P. Karn. ----------- 3. 28.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 22.1.96 at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, for having released certain payments for specified works in excess of the conditions of the contract. He gave his reply to the same on 15.2.96 by Annexure-B to the counter affidavit setting out his explanation in detail. What followed thereafter was the stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect without further notice. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C.NO.2186/02 with the grievance that he was not aware why his increment was withheld. This Court on 11.2.2002 observed that no orders for withholding the increment with cumulative effect had been placed on record and 2 therefore it was not possible to pass any positive orders, granted leave to the petitioner to file a representation. On the facts of the case, and the pleadings as they stand on the record today, the petitioner gave his reply to the show cause notice. Annexure-C to the counter affidavit is the purported final order of the respondents on the show cause notice and the cause shown. This Court on a bare perusal of Annexure-C finds that it contains only certain notings of numbers not only with regard to the petitioner but several others also. There is absolutely no suggestion of a discussion or consideration of the cause shown. If a show cause notice had been given and a reply had been filed there had to be final order setting out the reasons as to why the cause shown was not acceptable. From the counter affidavit it is apparent that this was not done. The other issue with regard to requirement of a departmental proceeding for imposition of a major punishment need not be decided at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that even if Rule 55A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules were to be invoked, the basic 3 premise for the same was lacking in absence of a reasoned order rejecting the cause shown displaying application of mind. The order dated 10.4.2002 is therefore clearly unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the one increment withheld with cumulative effect along with consequential benefits including the refixation of his post retiral dues, if any. Let such exercise be carried out by the respondents and the monetary dues be made available to the petitioner within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. (Navin Sinha,J.) AI