Ramjiwan Satyarthy vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents-State.

Petitioner was working as Section officer in the Road Construction Department. Department issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that appearance of the Secretary of the department concerned was required in the writ proceedings arising out of CWJC No. 1526/2006 for delay in filing the counter affidavit, attributed to the petitioner.

Petitioner thereafter has submitted his response. Disciplinary authority after submission of petitioner's representation has passed following order:-

"2. श्री रामजीवन सत्यार्थी से प्राप्त स्पष्टीकरण को समीक्षोपरान्त पथ निर्माण विभाग द्वारा असंतोषजनक पाया गया तथा इसके फलस्वरूप उक्त विभाग के पात्रांक 09 दिनांक 3.01.11 के द्वारा श्री सत्यार्थी का एक वेतन वद्धि असंचयात्मक प्रभाव से रोके जाने का दण्ड देने हेतु अनुशंसा सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग से की गई

पथ निर्माण विभाग के उपरोक्त अनुशंसा पर समीक्षोपरान्त अनुशासनिक प्राधिकार ने अपनी सहमति व्यक्त की है। तदनुसार अनुशासनिक प्राधिकार के निर्णय के आलोक में श्री रामजीवन सत्यार्थी, अवर सचिव, पशु मत्स्य विभाग, बिहार, पटना की एक वेतन वृद्धि असंचयात्मक प्रभाव से अवरूद्ध किया जाता है।"

There can be no better example of non-speaking order. The order of the Disciplinary authority dated 01.02.2011 manifests total non-application of mind. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in support of decision which visited the petitioner with minor penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect.

Petitioner thereafter has approached Reviewing authority by filing his review. The order of the Reviewing authority has also been passed in the same cryptic manner as the order of the Disciplinary authority. The Reviewing authority on 21.04.2011 has passed following order:-

"निदेशानुसार विभागीय आदेश सं0- 328 दिनांक - 1.2.2011, जिसके द्वारा आपकी एक वेतन वृद्धि असंचयात्मक प्रभाव से अवरूद्ध की गई है, के संबंध में प्राप्त विषयांकित पुनर्विलोकन अभ्यावेदन के संदर्भ में कहना है कि इसमें ऐसा कोई नया तथ्य नहीं है, जिसके आधार पर दण्ड के विन्दु पर पुनर्विचार किया जा सके।

अतः आपके विषयांकित पुनर्विलोकन अभ्यावेदन को समीक्षोपरान्त सरकार द्वारा अस्वीकृत कर दिया गया है।"

The Disciplinary authority as well as Reviewing authority, both who have exercised quasi judicial function while considering petitioner's response to show cause.

It is therefore, submitted by counsel for the petitioner that such cryptic orders without assigning any reason are not sustainable in the eye of law.

Counsel for the State submits that charge against the petitioner related to delay caused in proceedings pending before the court. Matter was required to be dealt with seriously. Department has shown leniency by awarding minor punishment after asking show cause from the petitioner. Therefore, order does not require any interference.

On consideration of submissions of the parties and going through the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority and the Reviewing authority, this court would observe that such orders without reason are clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. Opportunity of show cause and remedy of review are rendered futile by exercising such jurisdiction by the authorities. Non-assigning reason is glaring evidence of non-consideration of the point raised by the petitioner.

In this connection, this court would refer decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Case page 496. Importance of assigning reason has been reiterated time and again by Courts. The Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (supra) has laid down various circumstances wherein importance of assigning reason has been emphasized so as to minimize arbitrariness and ensure fairness in the decision. In the opinion of this Court orders dated 01.02.2011 and 21.04.2011 are in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court would therefore, quash the orders dated 01.02.2011 and 21.04.2011 passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, General Administration Department.

It is needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to whatever consequential benefits due to him on account of and as a consequence of quashing of the two orders.

Writ petition is allowed.