ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 24-03-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Resolution no.925 dated 13.09.2017 issued under the signature of respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect and further the petitioner would get nothing except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 26.04.2013 to 15.08.2013.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, adverting to the facts enumerated in the writ petition has contended that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Junior Electrical Engineer in the year 1984 and on being found eligible, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer in the year 1997.

4. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Dhaka, in the meanwhile, on account of certain imputation of disobedience and misconduct, he was put under suspension vide Resolution no. 69 dated 26.04.2013 in contemplation of a departmental proceedings, which was initiated vide Memo No.90 dated 12.06.2013. Altogether eight charges were framed against the petitioner. In response to the charges, the petitioner filed a detailed statement of defence with a prayer to exonerate him. The Enquiry Officer after completing the enquiry has submitted his enquiry report as contained in letter no. 131 dated 23.06.2016. The charges from 1 to 6 and 8 stood proved against the petitioner. So far charge no.7 is concerned, the same has been partially proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, second show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which was also responded in details with a request to exonerate him from the charges. However, the response of the petitioner did not find favour and finally the impugned order as contained in Resolution no.925 dated 13.09.2017 came to be passed, which is put to challenge before this Court.

5. While assailing the impugned order, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the order(s) and submitted that apart from the order is wholly cryptic and no reason has been assigned, as to why the second show-cause affidavit filed by the petitioner did not find favour; the punishment is only based upon the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, despite being under obligation to deal with second show-cause has only stated that the second show- cause offered by the petitioner was reviewed but it did not find favour and accorded the punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and further except subsistence allowance, nothing shall be payable for the period during suspension. Learned Senior Advocate, thus urged that any administrative or quasi judicial order must be supported by reason. Placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another v.

Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 496], it is contended that a quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions as the recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. The reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct; a pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. Moreover, if an order lacks reason, it cannot be tested by the appellate authority.

6. It is further argued that apart from the aforesaid ground(s), the order impugned is also bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as while imposing the punishment that the petitioner shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and except subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority was required to give separate show-cause notice to the delinquent in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code but the same has been given a complete go by in the matter in hand. To