Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13754 of 2022
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel,Manisha Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Durga Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2022 whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him.
The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order dated 25.08.2022, there is a clear non-application of mind. In respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the reply of the petitioner was considered, however, the same was disposed off only on the ground that the reply given was not found to be satisfactory. In support of his contention, the Counsel for the petitioner relies upon para 21 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education vs K.S. Gandhi; Civil Appeal Nos.491 to 544, decided on 12.03.1991, which is as under:
"21. Thus it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it effects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to meet out justice to the aggrieved person."
The Counsel for the petitioner also relies on para 17 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji vs The State of Punjab and others; Civil Appeal No.503 of 1978, decided on 09.03.1979, which is quoted below:
"17. We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India vs Mohan Lal Capoor and others. (1973) 1 SLR 824 that "rubber stamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List."
The Counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Committee of Management, Kashiraj Mahavidyalaya Inter College and another vs State of U.P. and others; Writ-C No.10345 of 2011, decided on 29.09.2011. The relevant para is as under:
"The impugned order is no order in the eye of law. The Secretary who passed the order has not given any reason of his own. This is no way of passing quasi judicial or administrative order affecting rights of parties. Such orders must contain reasons and show application of mind. Mentioning the charges, case of the aggrieved party and the case of department in a tabular form does not amount to giving reasons. Against no charge the Secretary who passed the order has mentioned that he accepted the version of which party, either of the management or the department, and for what reason. The second major defect in the order is that it is not based upon any evidence/material. Even this much is not clear that what material was available on the file for perusal of the Secretary who passed the impugned order."
In the light of the law laid down in the judgments referred above, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that even for the exercise of quasi judicial or administrative powers, it is incumbent upon the respondents to record reasons as the decision making process have to be based upon some reasoning, failing which, it fails to qualify the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the nature of the order passed, there is no application of mind with regard to the defence taken by the petitioner, the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 25.08.2022 is set aside solely on the ground referred above.
The writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to pass fresh order giving opportunity of hearing and after considering the defence of the petitioner in reply to the charges with all expedition.
This order has been pressed in the presence of Sri Durga Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Order Date :- 23.12.2022
akverma
