Deepak Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

The learned senior counsel, referring to the order date 26.08.2016 passed in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 2005 (for short the 'Bihar C.C.A. Rules') submits that it is a classic example of non-speaking order.

The submission of learned Senior counsel has to be viewed in the background of facts that the petitioner was proceeded against for certain lapses committed by him while discharging his duties as the vice Principal of the Industrial Training Institute, Bisfi, Madhubani. In the course of the consideration of the petitioner's show-cause a spot verification was also got conducted by the Joint Director, Training. The petitioner's specific case before the Reviewing Authority under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, was that copy of the spot verification report was not served on the petitioner, however, the same has formed the relevant material for imposition of the punishment of censure and withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect under order dated 07.07.2014 issued by the under Secretary (Respondent no.3). The said plea of the petitioner was required to be considered by the Reviewing Authority in view of the facts that specific issue was raised in the petitioner's memorial filed under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005.

The order passed by the Reviewing Authority disposes of the petitioner's memorial by a most cryptic order which does not contain any reasons in support of the conclusion. The order of the Reviewing Authority dated 26.08.2016 reads as follows.;

"निदेशानुसार उपर्युक्त विषयक आपके द्वारा विभागीय संकल्प संख्या-1930 दिनांक-07.07.2014(अधिरोपित लघु दण्डों) के विरूद्ध समर्पित पुनर्विलोकन याचिका को अनुशासनिक प्राधिकार द्वारा समीक्षोपरान्त पाया कि इस पर पुवर्विलोकन का कोई आधार नहीं हैं अतएव इसे अस्वीकृत किया जाता है।".

The same is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law. Non-assigning of reasons has been frowned upon by the Apex Court in the repeated judgments. This Court would consider it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. On account of order of the Reviewing Authority, being devoid of any reasons whatsoever, the same is hereby quashed. The Reviewing Authority, in the circumstances, would be required to consider the petitioner's memorial (Annexure-6) and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereupon in accordance with law expeditiously and without undue delay.

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions/observations.