Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10141 of 2019
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the charge that at the time of inspection carried out by the D.I.G. Police he was found absent. Pursuant to notices issued the petitioner submitted his reply clearly stating that he was present at the time of inspection. It was also urged that there was a change in the programme of the officer on inspection, and therefore, petitioner rushed from one place to another. Petitioner asserted that he was present at the time of inspection. Officiating Inspector whose report is relied upon in his statement has clearly stated that petitioner rushed to the place of visit and that he was present at the spot. This reply, however, does not appear to have been taken note of and the order of punishment has been passed awarding censure entry to the petitioner. This order has been affirmed in appeal and revision. Aggrieved by these three orders, the petitioner is before this Court.
The orders are assailed on the ground that petitioner's reply has not been considered in the matter and no reasons have been assigned to discard his explanation. Reliance is placed upon an order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.23290 of 2017 wherein following observations were made on 24.5.2017:-
"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."
Grievance is that non consideration of petitioner's reply in the facts and circumstances would vitiate the order impugned.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authority concerned shall specifically refer to petitioner's reply and thereafter pass appropriate orders.
In that view of the matter, the orders impugned dated 13.11.2017, 12.2.2016, 7.4.2016 and 2.5.2017 cannot be sustained and are quashed. The matter stands remitted to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order after specifically considering petitioner's reply as also the statement of Officiating Inspector concerned, in accordance with law.
Writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Ashok Kr.
