IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6703 of 2003 Ram Tripati Maharaj, Son of late Ram Bilash Maharaj, Resident of Village Pahleza, P.S. Mehandia, District Arwal. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Arrah. 4. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, at Ranchi. 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Distributory Division-V, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. -------- Respondents with CWJC No.714 of 2004 Ram Tripati Maharaj, Son of late Ram Bilash Maharaj, Resident of Village Pahleza, P.S. Mehandia, District Arwal. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Arrah. 4. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, at Ranchi. 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Distributory Division-V, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. -------- Respondents with CWJC No.7947 of 2003 Akhileshwar Pandey, Son of late Basudeo Pandey, Resident of Village Baligaon, P.S. Iar, District Bhojpur, presently posted as an Assistant Engineer, Water Discharge Sub-Division, Motihari. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Motihari. 4. The Executive Engineer, Water Discharge Sub-Division, Motihari. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 5.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the 2 petitioners and counsel for the State in all the three cases. The prayer of the petitioner, namely, Akhileshwar Pandey in CWJC No. 7947 of 2003 reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order no. 244 dated 18.6.2003, as contained in memo no. 709 of the even date, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder certain punishments, such as punishment of censure for the year 1989-90, withholding of promotion for seven years with effect from the due date and recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of symbol have been awarded against the petitioner and further for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent-authorities not to give effect to the said order and/or be pleased to pass such other order/orders, writ or direction for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter.” The prayer of the petitioner, namely, Ram Tripti Maharaj in his writ application CWJC No. 6703 of 2003 reads as follows:- 3 “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash letter no. 243 dated 18.6.2003, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Water Resources, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been imposed certain punishments i.e. Censure for the year 1989-90, withholding of promotion for seven years with effect from due date and recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a symbol and further for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order in any manner, save and except as permissible under the law and for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter.” Again the prayer of the petitioner, namely, Ram Tripti Maharaj in the writ application CWJC No. 714 of 2004 reads as follows:- “1. That, this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner any further by way of 4 recovery pursuance to letter No. 243 dt. 18.6.03 and to refund the amount so deducted vide Bill No. 208/03-04 and 210/03-04 vide instalment no. 1/67 and 2/67 against the head of penal recovery and/or to pass such any other order/orders for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned reliefs would submit that the unique procedure has been evolved in the department of Water Resources where a show-cause notice is slammed on an Engineer with regard to certain discrepancies in the work executed by him and his suitable explanation with connected documents and record is filed but the same is only left for consideration of the authorities in their minds, inasmuch as, the order which is passed thereon does not reflect any application of mind, muchless, dealing with the defence of the offence while filing reply to such show- cause notice. In this respect, counsel for the petitioner appearing in all the three cases would draw the attention of this Court towards the impugned orders and from bare reading of 5 such impugned orders, it becomes clear that barring recital of the earlier events of giving a show-cause notice or reply thereof, not a word has been said as with regard to the consideration of the show-cause reply. In such circumstances, this Court must hold that the respondents are purposefully and deliberately passing such orders which time and again are being set aside by this Court with an order of remand and leads to not only multiplicity of litigation but also causes harassment to the concerned persons. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Court have emphasized the need of passing of a reasoned order. In fact, in absence of such reasons, not only a judicial review by this Court or any court of law of such order passed by the authority becomes impossible and meaningless but even the person visited with such penal consequence of the impugned order is always at a sea to know as to why he was punished despite his furnishing an elaborate explanation which according to him was his valid sound defence. The recording of reasons, therefore, has always been treated to be the part of adherence to the principle 6 of natural justice. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siemens engineer and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Versus Union of India and Another reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785 or that of a Constitution Bench in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 are only by way of elucidation to the aforesaid well settled proposition of law. Thus, when this Court has found that the impugned orders in all these three writ petitions are totally blank orders and contain no reason at all for inflicting order of punishment on the petitioners, they must be held to be bad and accordingly, all of them are quashed. Since the writ applications are being allowed only on a technical ground, the respondents are given liberty to pass a fresh order on the basis of existing show-cause reply already filed by the petitioners. If the respondents, however, do not pass any fresh reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, they will cease to have such liberty whereafter the petitioners cannot be visited with any punishment, at least in respect of the scope and subject matter of the 7 impugned orders to these three writ petitions. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these three writ petitions are finally disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department for its compliance. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)