Allahabad High Court
Sobran Singh Constable vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50898 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sobran Singh Constable
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tiwari,Rajendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 10.07.2014, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, whereby punishment of deduction of thirty days' salary has been awarded. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been rejected vide orders dated 21.10.2015 and 11.05.2016.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment order is arbitrary and illegal as it does not disclose any reason, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that in response to the show cause notice petitioner has submitted detailed explanation. The authority concerned without adverting to his reply has rejected it by simply saying that his reply was found to be "Asantoshjanak" (Unsatisfactory). Contention is that since no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
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 above, the impugned order dated 10.07.2014 which is cryptic and skeletal cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Consequential orders dated 21.10.2015 and 11.05.2016 are also quashed. Liberty stands reserved to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021
Ashok Kr.
