Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar Sekhri vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059341
CWP-18696-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:059341
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218 CWP-18696-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.04.2024
Satish Kumar Sekhri
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY * **** Present : Mr. Vipin Mahjan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 04.02.2016, Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No.2 vide which recovery has been ordered to be made from the petitioner and for directing the respondent department to release his gratuity alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 2. Learnedcounselwouldcontendthatasubstantialamountofrecovery from the petitioner i.e. Rs.25,39,738.50 paise had been ordered vide impugned order dated 04.02.2016, Annexure P-7 and his gratuity was also not released, againstwhichhefiledanappealbeforetheAuthorityin2017.However,thesame was rejected without assigning any reasons, vide order dated 28.02.2017, AnnexureR-2/T,copyofwhichhadalsonotbeenfurnishedtohimandhebecame aware,onlywhenthesamewasappendedalongwiththewrittenstatementfiledto thepresentpetition.Hepraysforlibertytosupplementtheappealandsubmitson instructionsfromthepetitionerthathewouldbesatisfiedifthematterissentback to the concerned authority and decided afresh taking into account the aforesaid. 3. Learned State counsel is unable to support the order passed dismissing the appeal. However, prays that the appellate authority would not be 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2024 22:11:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059341 CWP-18696-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:059341 -2- averse to having a relook and pass it afresh in accordance with law. 4. On hearing learned counsel on either side, it is apparent that the appeal filed bythepetitioner,againsttheorderofrecovery,wasdismissedbythe authority by passing a laconicandnon-speakingorder. 5. It is imperative that whenever adecisionistakenbyaquasi-judicial authority, it must display attributes of a judicial order.Similarobservationswere made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1970) 1 SCC 764, that to ensure that the decision is reached in accordancetolawandnotonthegroundofpolicyorexpediency,norisaresultof any caprice, whim or fancy, it is obligatory for quasi-judicial authority to recording of reasons in support of it. 6. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Dev Kumar, Constable vs. State of Haryana, 2014(1) S.C.T. 215, wherein orders passed by the appellate authority were set side due to application of independentmindand failed to record any reason, much less cogent, by the authority in support of its order. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while condemning the mechanical way of dismissing an appeal under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, held in Ram Chander vs. UnionofIndia,(1986)3SCC103,that the context in which the word "consider" appears in Rule 22(2), mustmeanthat the Railway Board shall duly apply its mind and give reasons foritsdecision.It was further observed that duty to give reasons is an incidence of the judicial process and therefore, in discharging quasi-judicial functions, the Appellate Authority must give reasons for its decision, in accordance with principles of natural justice. 8. It has been observed in a catena ofjudgmentsthateveninordersof affirmation, reasons are to be recorded by thejudicialorquasi-judicialauthority, 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2024 22:11:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059341 CWP-18696-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:059341 -3- to ensure minimum chances of arbitrariness and to depict application of mind. Revertingtothecaseathand,appealbeingasubstantiveright,itwasnecessaryfor the Appellate Authority to have dealt with the grounds that were raised while layingachallengetotheorderofrecovery,sincethepointofviewofanauthority higher than the one, the order of which was appealed against, would enable the Court also to have a better conspectus of the matter. 9. The terse nature of the impugned order, highlights the conspicuous deficiency in consideration by the appellate authority, while arriving at the decision, which otherwise should have been self-contained, speaking and reasoned. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 28.02.2017issetaside.As prayed,thepetitionerispermittedtosupplementthegroundstakenwithinaperiod of four weeks, in such eventuality, the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh, taking note of the pleas raised therein, else based on the original appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 3 0.04.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2024 22:11:38 :::