IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.178 of 2010 The State Of Jharkhand through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Dornada, Ranchi …….. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Daltonganj 5. The Executive Engineer, North Koel Canal Division Amas Camp, Sherghati …………… Respondents/Respondents 6. Bharat Singh s/o Ambika Singh, r/o village Susnar, p.O. Bharthauli, P.S. Aurangabad, District Aurangabad ………Petitioner/Respondent ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Satyavrat Varma, S.C., Govt. of Jharkhand For the respondent nos. 1 to 5: Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA V For the respondent no.6: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate --- 3 5/3/2010 I.A. No.1960 of 2010 This is an application for grant of leave to prefer an appeal on the ground that the State of Jharkhand was not made a party to the writ petition though the respondent – writ petitioner is an employee of Jharkhand State in presenti. In view of aforesaid, leave is granted. I.A. No.1960 of 2010 stands disposed of. 2 IA. No.862 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 555 days in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. Satyavrat Varma, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the contesting respondent – writ petitioner. It is urged in the application for condonation of delay that the State of Jharkhand was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition despite the fact that the writ petition was preferred in 2004 and the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient ground does exist for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay stands condoned. I.A. No.862 of 2010 stands disposed of. LPA. No.178 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned 3 Single Judge while quashing the order of punishment imposed on the appellant vide Annexure -1 to the writ petition had held that the impugned order did not ascribe any reason. The learned Single Judge after so holding has expressed the view as follows: “The facts as they stand, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order of punishment which has been passed on complete non-consideration of the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 1.8.1998 is, accordingly, quashed.” It is urged by Mr. Satyavrat varma, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State, that the learned Single Judge should have been well advised to grant liberty to the appellant to pass a reasoned order inasmuch as the same was not passed assigning any reason and further the appellant had a right to be heard in the matter. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent – writ petitioner supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is perceptible that he has lanceted the 4 order passed by the competent authority on the ground that it was totally bereft of the reason. We also perused the order and found that no reason has been ascribed and the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in quashing the order. However, he should have directed a remit of the matter to the competent authority to pass a fresh order. In view of aforesaid, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that it will be open to the appellant State , namely, State of Jharkhand to pass a fresh order by ascribing cogent and germane reasons considering the show cause/reply filed by the respondent – writ petitioner in proper perspective. Be it noted, Mr. Varma, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly stated that the appellant -State has no objection to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent – writ petitioner. Needless to emphasise that the competent authority shall not travel beyond the material that was incorporated in the show cause notice and dwell upon any fresh material as that would tantamount to transgression. We may further 5 hasten to clarify keeping in view the apprehension expressed by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent – writ petitioner, that the appellant – State of Jharkhand may supply any further material to bolster the punishment, we direct that no further material shall be brought on record in this proceeding. The whole exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned Single Judge, the appeal stands disposed of. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)