IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.292 of 2010
1. Gupteshwar Prasad S/O Late Gopalji Prasad R/O Vill &
P.S.Dumraon, Distt-Buxar
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary To The
Government , Department Of Finance , Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary-Cum -Commissioner Commercial
Taxes , Bihar, Patna
with
CWJC No.326 of 2010
1. Pritam Kumar Singh S/O Sri Rama Kant Singh R/O Vill &
P.O. Morsanda, P.S. Falka, Distt. Katihar
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary To The
Govt. Deptt. Of Finance, Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner Commercial
Taxes, Bihar, Patna
-----------
For the Petitioners:- Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Adv.
For the State:- Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
————-
3. 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and the State.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order
of punishments dated 5.10.2009 and 13.10.2008
respectively visiting them with censure to be entered
in their character roll for the years 2007-08.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that in response to the show cause notice
after the reply was filed even for a minor punishment
there has to be a reasoned order.
Counsel for the State submitted that being
a minor punishment the procedure by giving of a
show cause notice and consideration of the reply has
been followed. The impugned order in no uncertain
2
term states that reply had been considered. The
punishment in any event was minor in nature when
the petitioners failed to meet collection targets.
The show cause notice was issued on
11.5.2009/4.4.2008. Rule 19 of the Bihar C.C.A.
Rules, 2005 imposes a statutory duty on the
respondents to pass an order recording findings on
imputation of misconduct. The Rule therefore makes
it explicit that the final order must contain reasons.
Reasons have been held to be the very heart and
soul of an order giving an insight into the mind of
the maker that the defence of the delinquent had
been considered. If the defence was not acceptable,
the delinquent before he is to be visited with
punishment has a right, inherent in the concept of
natural justice, to know why his defence it was not
accepted. He has a right to know why he has lost. It
is not the ipsi dixit of the disciplinary authority but
the regulation controlling his powers which requires
him to give reasons. An order without reasons is
arbitrary. It also hinders judicial review. A non
speaking order cannot be explained in a counter
affidavit. Even if this Court were to permit the same
in the present case, the counter affidavit is of no help
as it does not discuss why the defence given by the
3
petitioner was not acceptable.
The order of punishments dated 5.10.2009
and 13.10.2008 are accordingly set aside without
prejudice to the rights of the respondents.
The writ applications stand allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)