Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Baghel vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5012 of 2021
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Baghel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order dated 11.11.2019 on the ground that authority passing the order had failed to consider explanation offered by the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in Writ-A No. 11074 of 2020 which is being quoted herein below:-
"Heard Sri K.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of major penalty imposed upon the petitioner is sans consideration of explanation offered by the petitioner, in its correct perspective. He argues that merely referring the explanation to be not satisfactory is not enough for an authority passing final order in exercise of an authority having trappings of a quasi judicial power.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.- 23290 of 2017 vide order dated 24th May, 2017. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:-
"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."
This Court in Writ-A No.- 11190 of 2019, Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 26th July, 2019 has also taken similar view.
It is further submitted that the above writ petition was with identical facts and circumstances as involved in the present petition.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the legal and factual position and submits that this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the order quoted herein above.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 11.11.2019 is set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass an order afresh strictly in accordance with law after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in Writ-A No. 11074 of 2020.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
RKP
