Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashish Kumar vs Chairman Cum Chief Managing Director ... on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645
CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 1
2024:PHHC:036645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Ashish Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director through its Secretary and
others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Manthan Pathania, Advocate
for Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P-10), vide which the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments, without future effect, has been imposed upon the petitioner and to quash the order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-12), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner joined the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PSPCL') as Junior Engineer (J.E.) on 22.11.2016 and while he was posted at Block Rayya, he received an application for installing a single phase meter connection in restaurant namely 'Pizzeria' and after due approval from the department through proper channel, he got installed the said single phase meter on the site. Since the restaurant required increase in load so they moved another 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:036645 application for upgrading the single phase meter connection to three phase meter connection, however, for installing the said three phase meter connection, a transformer was required but on account of on- going Paddy season, general instructions were issued by the Department that in each Paddy season, preference is to be given to the farmers due to shortage of transformer and thus, the three phase meter connection could not be installed on site. Later on, after the end of Paddy season, the petitioner received the transformer on 03.11.2018 and the same was installed by the petitioner on site on the same day without any delay and thereafter completed all the formalities of the file. The petitioner was having the charge from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 and thereafter, the charge was handed over to A.J.E. Harjit Singh on 01.10.2018 and on 20.12.2018, the Meter Reader found that there is no meter installed previously on the site bearing No.159159 and a new meter No.152133 was installed at the site of Pizzeria Cafe and it is alleged that the meter bearing No.152133, which was installed by the petitioner was changed by A.J.E. Harjit Singh as he was having the charge after 30.10.2018, but the concerned authority without verifying the said fact have straightway charge-sheeted the petitioner on 08.08.2019 without issuing any show cause notice to him. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and produced the entire evidence of the record and the Enquiry Officer in his finding recorded that the petitioner is totally innocent and he has nothing to do with the changing of meter as the charge of GSC and MCO was with A.J.E. Harjit Singh and he is responsible for the same but inspite of that, the punishing authority overlooked the said finding and imposed penalty of stoppage of two 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:036645 annual increments without future effect vide punishment order dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P-10).
3. Feeling aggrieved against the punishment order dated 03.09.2020, the petitioner filed a detailed appeal dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-11), however, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-12). Hence the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the other grounds taken in the writ petition, one of the ground for challenging the appellate order is that the same is cryptic and non- speaking as none of the points raised in the appeal have been considered and decided by the Appellate Authority while rejecting his appeal vide order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-12) and since the order of the Appellate Authority is totally cryptic and non-speaking, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents - PSPCL and could not dispute the abovesaid factual aspect with regard to passing of the cryptic and non-speaking order by the appellate authority.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The respondent/authorities were under legal obligation to assign cogent reasons while passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-12), so that this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, may be in a position to know as to what were the reasons weighing in the mind of the authority, while passing the 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:036645 impugned order. It is so said because the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. Since the horizon of natural justice has been constantly expanding in the recent past, hardly any visible distinction is left in the functioning of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, so far as the necessity of recording the reasons is concerned. That is why reasons are called the soul of a judgment.
9. The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Phal v. State of Haryana", 2009(1) SCC (L&S) 645. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in Ram Phal's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"The duty to give reasons for coming to a decision is of decisive importance which cannot be lawfully disregarded. The giving of the satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice and also a healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over others. This Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519 has stated:
19....Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
Without the same, it becomes lifeless."
10. Again, while dealing with the question of demarcation between the administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders and the requirement of adherence to natural justice as well as recording reasons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the broad guidelines in this regard, in the case of "Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others", (2010) 9 SCC 496. The 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:036645 relevant observations made in para 47 of the judgment, which aptly apply in the present case, read as under:-
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds :
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have
5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:036645 been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) 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.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor). (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-
737)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ. 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:036645 process".
11. Same view was held in judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others", 2009(4) SCC 240. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under :-
"5. 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 case 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.
6. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divl. Forest Officer Vs. Madhusudhan Rao JT 2008(2) SC 253 (vide para 19) and in M.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1785 (vide para 6), etc.
7. In the present case, since the appellate authority's order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of mind.
8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:036645 have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the 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.
9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case, it has been observed that : (SCC p. 613, para 36) "36. ... The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority.
10. For the same reason, the decision of this Court in State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan (vide AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1827, para 15) has also to be understood as explained by us above.
11. Hence, we agree with the High Court that reasons should have been contained in the appellate authority's order."
13. Similar views have been observed in "Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and others", 1986(3) SCC 103, "Sengara Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others", 1983(4) SCC 225, "State of U.P Vs. Raj Pal Singh", 2002(1) SCT 205 as well as judgments of this 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 CWP No.6039 of 2024 (O&M) 9 2024:PHHC:036645 Court in case "Gulab Singh Vs. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others", 2005(1) PLR 440, "State of Punjab Vs. Pargat Singh through LRs", 2004(3) RSJ 604, "Nafe Singh Vs. Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd. and others", 2016(1) SCT 212, "Pritam Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board", 1995(2) SCT 754 and "R.S. Bhatti vs State of Haryana", 2001(2) SCT 1156.
14. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is unhesitatingly held that since the appellate order is cryptic and non-speaking, it cannot be sustained. The respondent/authorities have failed to discharge their legal obligation and acted in violation of the above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained for this reason as well.
15. In view of the facts as mentioned above and law position as discussed, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Appellate Authority, is set- aside and the case is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, in view of the observations made hereinabove and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
14.03.2024 JUDGE
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036645 9 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:52:02 :::