IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7332 of 2009 Abhay Kant Paswan Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 16.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his order of punishment dated 10.11.2006 in a departmental proceeding withholding three increments with cumulative effect and denying him any promotion for the next six years. The appeal preferred against the same has been rejected as communicated to him on 6.12.2008. The petitioner is stated to be the Office Clerk in the Court of Subordinate Judge I at Rosera. He along with the Bench Clerk, one Sri Ajay Kumar Singh No. I, were departmentally proceeded with for missing of the records of Title Suit No. 76 of 2001.The records were then reconstructed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that the finding of delinquency arrived at against him was not appropriate as he had demonstrated that after the records were handed over by him to the Bench Clerk it did not come back to him before the date that the records were found to be missing. It was next submitted that even an appellate order of affirmance is required to be reasoned indicating application of mind to enable the delinquent to know that the grounds taken in the appeal had been considered. The submission is that an appeal is not an empty formality but a substantive right and another opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority that the delinquent was not at fault and that he may deserve exoneration. The appellate order dated 6.12.2008 discloses nothing. 2 No counter affidavit has been filed and therefore the petitioner does not know why the grounds taken in the appeal were not acceptable. If there are any grounds available in the records on which the appellate order dated 6.12.2008 is based, the petitioner may be given a copy of the same to enable him to apply his mind and then decide whether to pursue his challenge or not and attempt to persuade the Court that even the speaking order was not inconsonance with law. Counsel for the respondents has produced the original records. He submits from the original records that the communication dated 6.12.2008 for rejection of the appeal is but the product of a well considered application of mind to the grounds taken in the appeal. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today annexing the copy of his memo of appeal. There is no controversy that procedures were followed including giving of a second show cause notice. The reply to the second show cause notice, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the writ petition did not raise any substantive grounds of any irregularities in procedure causing him prejudice except that the appellate order was non speaking warranting interference by the Court in exercise of powers of judicial review over an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding. The limits of the powers of judicial review stands well defined. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to review the findings of fact. The Enquiry Officer has arrived at a considered opinion that both the Bench Clerk and the Office Clerk were attempting to shift the responsibility upon each other. There is no occasion for the Court to reassess the materials collected during the enquiry to arrive at any fresh finding. An appellate order is not required to be reasoned or discussed like the original order. Nonetheless even an appellate order 3 of affirmation is required to briefly disclose reasons showing application of mind by the appellate authority. It need not contain an elaborate discussion but it must at least reflect that the appellate authority has considered the grounds taken in the memo of appeal in conjunction with the finding. The Court finds from the original records that the disciplinary authority on 1.12.2008 has more than adequately applied its mind not only to the findings recorded against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry but also to the grounds taken in the memo of appeal to a arrive at a considered brief finding why the grounds taken in the memo of appeal were not acceptable. There is no occasion to sit in appeal over the finding in exercise of powers of judicial review when the finding of the appellate authority is not arbitrary, perverse or fanciful. Before parting with the case, the Court does consider it proper to observe that when any order is to the prejudice of a person, he has a right to know why he has lost. The person winning a case may be euphoric not interested in the reasons. Justice shall be done and shall prevail and shall appear to be done when a person who looses the case is able to understand why he has lost. Perhaps it would be a matter of proper procedure that in every case where the delinquent does not succeed he is furnished a reasoned order and is not left guessing that whether the grounds taken in the memo of appeal was considered or not with a lurking sense of injustice. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4