Allahabad High Court
Sunil Dutt Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6877 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sunil Dutt Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 18484 of 2018 and following orders were passed in the matter on 30.8.2018:-
"While awarding censure entry to the petitioner, as affirmed in appeal and revision, absolutely no reason has been assigned by the respondents to discard petitioner's explanation. Issuing of show cause notice is admitted. Except to hold that explanation is not satisfactory, no other justification is disclosed in the order, nor reasons have been indicated to discard petitioner's claim. In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.23290 of 2017 has been pleased to pass following orders on 24.5.2017:-
"By the impugned order, the petitioner has been found guilty and he has been awarded a censure entry in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and it does not disclose any reason, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted detailed representation on 28.04.2016. The authority concerned without adverting to his reply has rejected it by single order that his reply was found "Asantoshjanak" (Unsatisfactory). He submits that no reason has been assigned in the matter, hence, the order is arbitrary.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is well settled law that an administrative/quasi judicial order must contain reason in support of the conclusion and in absence of the reason, the order become arbitrary.
The Supreme Court in long line of decisions has settled the view that recording the reasons is an essential feature in administrative decision. Recording the reasons also checks the State functionaries to act fairly and restrain them from arbitrary exercise of their administrative or quasi judicial power. The reasons in support of decision must be cogent and clear, which can demonstrate that authority concerned has applied his mind. Reference may be made to the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785; Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496; Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87; S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519; Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785.
In view of the said settled law, I find that the impugned order which is cryptic and skeletal, needs to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law, expeditiously.
In view of the fact that from order itself, it is evident that no reason has been mention, no useful purpose would be served to grant time to learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner's grievance shall be examined, afresh.
In view of the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.5.2017, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms."
Pursuant to the order passed, a fresh order has been passed by the revisional authority, rejecting the petitioner's contention. The order passed in revision is now assailed in this petition by contending that since orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority were also quashed in the earlier writ petition, the matter ought to have been considered by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner's right of filing appeal and revision would be lost. This is what appears to have happened in the facts of the present case inasmuch as though the orders passed by disciplinary authority as well as appellate court were also quashed, yet the order dated 30.11.2018 has been passed by the revisional authority. The remedy which is available to the petitioner under the 'U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991', therefore, would is lost.
In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Revisional Authority stands quashed. Matter stands remitted to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order, keeping in view the observations made in the order dated 30.8.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 18484 of 2018.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
n.u.
