IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1450 of 2008 KAMESHWAR PRASAD VERMA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioners: Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha-2, Adv. Mr. Jibendra Mishra, Adv. For the Respondents: Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar (G.P. 16) ----------- 2/ 06/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 5.8.2007 and 2.11.2007 stopping their salary for one day i.e. 4.8.2007 and one increment with non- cumulative effect. On account of floods, the District Magistrate had directed all government staff to remain present at the block headquarters. The Block-cum-Circle Office, Dandkhora was found to be closed on a sudden inspection at 10.00 p.m. on 4.8.2007. A show cause notice was issued to which the petitioners replied. They took the specific stand that according to the duty chart roster they were not assigned duty at 10.00 p.m. in the night on 4.8.2007 at the control centre, Dandkhora and enclosed the duty roster chart also. The final order of punishment simply states that his defence was not acceptable. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners were absent from the flood control centre at 2 Dandkhora factually verified. The punishment was minor for which a show cause notice had been issued and reply considered. Nothing more was required to be done. Even for a minor punishment, when the delinquent shows cause, the respondents are required to consider and deal with it appropriately. The cause shown cannot be rejected by a cryptic one liner order stating that it was not acceptable. It has to contain even a brief discussion as to why the cause shown was not acceptable, especially when it stated to be accompanied with documentary evidence. From the materials on record it appears that the petitioners were required to remain present at the block headquarters. It is nobody’s case that they were not available at Dandkhora. On the contrary in their show cause notice they stated that they were at home. They enclose the duty chart to contend that they were not required to be on duty at 10.00 p.m which was assigned to another. This was a question of fact to be verified by the respondents from records before passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders, in absence of proper consideration of the cause shown, become arbitrary and unsustainable. The impugned orders dated 5.8.2007 and 3 2.11.2007 are accordingly quashed. The writ application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)