Judgment:
CWP No.6746 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6746 of 2005 Date of decision: 26.09.2013 Gurmej Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Punjab...TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
(ORAL).The services of the petitioner while working as Booking Clerk cum Sub Inspector, Punjab Roadways Tarn Taran were terminated vide order dated 19.04.2000 at Annexure P-17 passed by the Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways Ferozepur.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 25.01.2005 (Annexure P-20).The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the order of termination as also the order passed by the Appellate authority affirming the order of penalty.
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
I am of the considered view that the validity of the order of termination dated 19.04.2000 would not require any adjudication at this stage.
This view is being taken on the basis that the petitioner had submitted a detailed appeal dated 05.06.2003 under Rule 15 read with Rules 16 & 18 Kaur Harjeet 2013.10.04 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6746 of 2005 -2- of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 against the order of termination and the same has been placed on record at Annexure P-19.
While rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, the following observations had been made by the Appellate Authority: “4.
After perusing the record of the appellant, it is quite evident that the Punishing Authority complied with the requisite procedure under the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 and found the appellant guilty of serious irregularity and played fraud with the Government.
5.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I, Divisional Manager Ferozepur upheld the order of termination passed by the punishing authority and his appeal dated 05.06.2003 is hereby rejected.
Sd/- D.S.Jaspal Chandigarh Principal Secretary, Dated 25th January, 2005 Punjab Government Endst.
No.9/158/03-ITI Chandigarh”.
The appeal dated 05.06.2003 at Annexure P-19 was in the nature of a statutory remedy provided to the petitioner against an order of imposition of a major penalty.
Such remedy is in the nature of substantive remedy and cannot be reduced to a mere formality and an eye wash.
It was imperative upon the Appellate Authority to have applied its mind and to have considered all the submissions and grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal.
The impugned appellate order dated 25.01.2005 is a cryptic and non speaking order which does not contain any reasons showing due application of mind.
The grounds and submissions raised in the appeal have not even been adverted to a much less dealt with.
The Hon'be Supreme Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Kaur Harjeet 2013.10.04 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6746 of 2005 -3- Varshney and &, 2009 (3) SCT39 had clearly held that where the Appellate Authority passes an order of affirmation, it need not contain elaborate reasons but that would not mean that such order of affirmation would not contain any reasons whatsoever.
It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following terMs.“7.
In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever.
In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case (Supra) has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind.
Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority.
Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all.
That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divisional Forest Officer v.
Madhusudan Rao, JT2008(2) SC253(vide para 19).and in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd.v.Union of India, AIR1966SC671 siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co.Ltd.v.Union of India, AIR1976SC1785(vide para 6).etc.8.
In the present case, since the appellate authority's order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of mind.
9.
The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee v.
Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC594 is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.
10.
Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know Kaur Harjeet 2013.10.04 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6746 of 2005 -4- whether the authority has applied its mind or not?.
Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness.
Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.”
.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is partly allowed.
The order dated 25.01.2005 (Annexure P-20) is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 to pass an order afresh after taking into account all the submissions and grounds that had been raised by the petitioner in the appeal dated 05.06.2003 at Annexure P-19.
It is further directed that such exercise of fresh consideration be completed in terms of passing a speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Petition partly allowed in the aforesaid terMs.September 26, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE Kaur Harjeet 2013.10.04 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document