ANIRUDH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) With regard to certain recommendations made by the petitioner as an Anchal Adhikari in Bandobasti Case a show cause notice was given to him which he duly replied. The impugned punishment dated 27.5.2009 followed thereafter stopping three increments with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred a review application against the same which has also been rejected on 28.10.2009.

(3.) For imposition of minor punishment all that is required is to give a show cause notice, consider the cause shown and then pass a speaking order displaying application of mind to the charges made and the cause shown to arrive at a finding. There must be a brief discussion in the final order displaying transparency with regard to application of mind to the materials on record and on the basis of which findings are made of either to accept the cause shown or reject the cause shown. This has been considered necessary by the courts as a facet of the principles of natural justice. This process of reasoning has been held to be the ultimate control upon arbitrariness in order to impose minor punishment. If an order contains no discussion or reason the matter is left to the uncontrolled authority to pass an order on his own. A citizen is left without satisfaction that the cause shown by him has been appropriately considered but was found not unacceptable.