Gujarat High Court

Mohmmad Unus Abdulkarim Shaikh vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 9 April, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/2835/2012                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2835 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                    Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                            MOHMMAD UNUS ABDULKARIM SHAIKH
                                                          Versus
                                          PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR BP TANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR A R ROCKEY(7592) for the
                       Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                                                      Date : 24/03/2025-09/04/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. B. P. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Mr. A. R. Rockey, the learned advocate appearing

for the petitioner and Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate

appearing for the respondent No.1.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

2. The petitioner herein has prayed for declaring the

inquiry proceedings illegal as well as the decision of the

respondent No.2 removing the petitioner from the service and

the order passed by the Appellate Authority and treat the

petitioner in continuous service as if no order of penalty was

issued to the petitioner. The relief as prayed for read thus :-

"A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inquiry proceedings, as illegal and contarary to law and be please to set aside the decision of respondent no. 2 to remove the petitioner from services and the order passed by appellate authority, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-application of mind and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to treat the petition in continuous service as if no order of penalty was issued to the petitioner.

B. Be pleased to declare the decision of Disc. Authroity imposing penalty of removal from service of the petitioner and order passed by the appellate authority, as illegal, unjust and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and pay arrears to the petitioner with 18% interest.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

C. Pending admission and final disposal of the petition be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of the order of imposing penalty of removal of services to the petitioner and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume duties.

D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in interest of justice."

3. Briefly stated the petitioner herein was suspended vide

order dated 5.3.2010. The alleged incident of electricity theft

occurred at the residence of one Shri Shaileshbhai Bhayani,

that there was a circuit attached and by attaching the said

circuit the petitioner had allegedly collected Rs.3,000/- from

the customer. So far as Shaileshbhai Bhayani is concerned, he

was earlier also caught in electricity theft. On the basis of his

statement, suspension order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure-A),

charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner dated 4.10.2010

(Annexure-B).

3.1 The petitioner submitted reply to the said charge-sheet

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure-C). The Inquiry Officer conducted

inquiry proceedings in flagrant violation of the Disciplinary

Appeal Rules and principle of natural justice. The inquiry

officer instead of examining the prosecution witnesses has

examined the petitioner upto page-1 to 18 of the proceedings

and thereafter filled in the gaps. The departmental witnesses

were called from 14.3.2011 to 29.3.2011, inquiry proceedings

were adjourned on 17.3.2011, 22.3.2011 and 28.3.2011. The

petitioner was examined and cross-examined.

3.2 The petitioner was without service and the inquiry

report served with the show cause notice on 22.7.2011

(Annexure-G) which was with pre-determined mind. The

petitioner requested to supply him inquiry report which was

supplied on 29.7.2011 (Annexzure-H). The petitioner submitted

detailed reply to the show cause notice on 29.8.2011. The

order of removal of the petitioner from service came to be

issued vide Order No.JCO-HR-PERSONAL-11-810 on 23.9.2011.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

3.3 The aforesaid gave rise to the Special Civil Application

No.15092 of 2011. The said petition was disposed of wherein

the petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority

by way of Appeal (Annexure-J). In the meanwhile, the

petitioner received order of dismissal from service on 23.9.2011

(Annexure-K). The petitioner filed Appeal to the Managing

Director pointing out that there is no substance in the

allegations against the petitioner and the inquiry proceedings

and findings are perverse and contrary to the law. The Appeal

preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected by order

dated 8.2.2012 without recording any contentions of the

petitioner (Annexure-M).

3.4 The aforesaid has given rise to filing of the present

petition for the reliefs, as prayed above.

4. Mr. B. P. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings conducted by

the respondent authority are violative of Disciplinary Appeal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

Rules and principles of natural justice and fair play.

4.1 It is submitted that the petitioner was examined first

and thereafter to fill up the gaps the departmental witnesses

were examined.

4.2 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in 2008 (8) SCC 236 wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that, in an enquiry, the employer should take

steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent

charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the

witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the

workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any

evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence

led against him.

4.3 It is submitted that after the examination of the

petitioner to fill up the gaps the respondent examined the first

witness, Lab Dy. Engineer Mr. N. S. Doshi. The petitioner had

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

requested the inquiry officer to call the main witness i.e.

complainant - Shri Shaileshbhai Bhayani. The said

communication is duly produced at Annexure-D. The said

request was rejected by letter dated 7.6.2011 informing that

the statement of Shri Shaileshbhai Bhayani was taken by the

competent authority verified and, therefore, his presence is not

necessary.

4.4 It is submitted that the name of witness mentioned in the

charge-sheet i.e. the name of Shri G. K. Vara, PSI was not

mentioned, yet all of a sudden he was called as a witness

which was objected by the petitioner by communication/letter

dated 23.5.2011. The said request was rejected by letter dated

7.6.2011. Based on such so called inquiry proceedings which is

not at all in conformity with the provisions of Disciplinary

Appeal Rules and principles of natural justice and fair play, it

is submitted that the petitioner was not served with the

inquiry report with the show cause notice and that disciplinary

proceedings are initiated with pre-decided mind and to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

victimize the petitioner.

4.5 It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner in

the reply to the show cause notice going to the root of the

matter and that the impugned orders are passed without taking

into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner.

5. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for

the respondent authority submitted that it was observed from

the figures of T & D Loss of the respondent Company that

mass scale theft of electricity was going on in the jurisdiction

of the respondent in Saurashtra region. It was observed that

special circuits were prepared and as and when it was applied

to the meter or kept near the meter, the meter was getting

hanged and particular number was appearing on the meter

display. Therefore even though the meter is O.K., the

consumption of electricity would not be recorded in the meter.

To stop the aforesaid mass crime, the respondent decided to

task all such persons who are involved in theft of electricity.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

At various places during the course of site inspection such

circuits were seized. To see that not only the person who

commits theft is caught, but also the persons involved in

manufacturing, supplying and fixing such circuits are also

caught and action were required to be taken against them

because if such persons are not stopped from manufacturing,

selling or fixing such device, the entire transmission and

distribution of electricity would be affected and there would be

serious financial loss to the respondent company. If such

circuits are used, there would be no sufficient electricity

available in the Saurashtra region. In view thereof the

respondent company issued specific circulars wherein directions

were issued to the field offices that in such cases even if the

consumer make payment of 100% of the bill for theft of

electricity, unless such consumer discloses the name of the

person who has manufactured/ supplied/ fixed the circuit, the

connection should not be reconnected. In some cases the

consumers at Jamnagar obtained order of re-connection from

Special Court at Jamnagar. Against such orders, the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

herein preferred Appeal From Order Nos.81 of 2010 to 88 of

2010 wherein interim order passed by the Trial Court was

stayed. In those matters, the Hon'ble Court after detailed

hearing and perusing the affidavit filed by the Managing

Director, PGVCL showing how the theft was committed and

how it will affect the revenue and the seriousness of such

offence and the details of such persons booked for the same,

how many cases have been registered in PGVCL Police Station,

how many circuits have been seized by the company and other

important relevant data were placed before the Court. It was

also brought to the notice of the Court that PGVCL staff was

also found involved in helping consumers using such device.

Two persons had been identified and are suspended

immediately and disciplinary actions are started against them

as per company's rules. It is submitted that the petitioner

herein is one of these two employees.

5.1 It is submitted that the stay granted was confirmed by

the High Court upon perusing the affidavit of the Managing

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

Director duly produced at Annexure-I. It is submitted that the

petitioner herein was involved in supplying such circuits to the

consumers of the respondent herein and it has been admitted

by the consumers before the respondent as well as before

police that the aforesaid circuits were supplied and fixed by

the petitioner herein. It is submitted that various F.I.Rs. have

been filed against the petitioner herein as well as the

consumers indulging in theft of electricity under Section 150 of

The Electricity Act, 2003 and other offences which is duly

produced at Annexure-II.

5.2 Reliance is placed on F.I.Rs. lodged with GUVNL Police

Station against petitioner as well as persons indulging in the

theft of electricity duly produced at Annexure-III wherein

statements given by the consumers as well as the petitioner

herein before police authority, are placed on record. The

petitioner herein in his statement given before police authority

admitted having committed the offence of supplying the

circuits.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

5.3 It is submitted that upon issuance of the charge-sheet to

the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended from service vide

order dated 5.3.2010. The consumer one Shri Shailesh

Dharamshibhai Bhayani during the laboratory inspection gave a

statement and declared that the petitioner had come with the

box that if it is fixed with the wiring, then his consumption

will be less and he had charged Rs.3,000/- from the said

consumer for fitting this device. The petitioner was supplied

copy of the Proforma-15 alongwith charge-sheet also copy of

the site rojkam dated 18.2.2010, copy of the Annexure-4 dated

18.2.2010, copy of the credit gate pass no.1, copy of the meter

rojkam JRD/008924 dated 19.2.2010, copy of the statement of

the consumer and panchnama and copy of the fax message

dated 9.3.2010.

5.4 It is submitted that the police was informed since theft

of electricity amounts to offence under Section 135, 138 and

150 of The Electricity Act, 2003. The F.I.R. was lodged against

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

the petitioner as well as the consumer on 9.3.2010. The entire

investigation was carried out by the police officer - P.S.l. Shri

G.K. Vara. The charge-sheet was issued for causing financial

loss to the respondent company, for causing damage to the

image of the respondent company. The charges stood proved

against the petitioner vide report of the Inquiry Officer dated

21.6.2011. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner

on 22.7.2011 to which the petitioner replied on 29.8.2011. The

competent authority considering the same passed the order

dated 23.9.2011 removing the petitioner from the service.

5.5 It is submitted that the petitioner was granted full and

sufficient opportunity following the cardinal principles of

natural justice. Against the order of removal dated 23.9.2011,

the petitioner preferred Departmental Appeal to the Managing

Director and the same was rejected by the order dated

8.2.2012. In the meantime, the competent authority passed the

order terminating the service of the petitioner after conducting

departmental inquiry and upon giving full opportunity of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

defense to the petitioner.

5.6 It is submitted that the petitioner upon suspension on

5.3.2010 by Circular dated 3.4.2001 of erstwhile Gujarat

Electricity Board, was given subsistence allowance which came

to be increased from 50% to 75% on completion of one year

from the date of suspension of the concerned employee duly

produced at Annexure-IV.

5.7 It is submitted that the petitioner is guilty of

misconduct, misappropriation and which is established looking

to the documentary evidence. Looking to the seriousness of

charges which are proved against the petitioner in the

departmental inquiry the service of the petitioner was

terminated. It is submitted that the petitioner earlier also faced

departmental inquiry and punishment of stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect, however there was no

improvement in the petitioner. The action taken against the

petitioner is in accordance with the rules and it was felt that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

the petitioner's action is against the interest of the company.

5.8 It is submitted that the business of distribution of

electricity is directly connected with the public. If such type of

incidents happen repeatedly, if no strict action is taken against

the persons responsible for the same, then it gives a wrong

message to the society at large which would create bad image

of the company in the public eye. The impugned action by the

respondent Company is in the interest of the public at large

and the company that the petitioner's service was terminated.

There cannot be any malafide on the part of the officers of the

respondents who have acted in the interest of the company

and in accordance with law.

5.9 It is submitted that the consumer i.e. Shaileshbhai

Bhayani was examined by the competent authority and the

police and who had given statement before the police which

was confirmed by the competent authority and therefore it was

not necessary to examine the consumer.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

5.10 It is submitted that upon objection raised by the

petitioner against examining P.S.I. Shri G. K. Vara, the same

was not considered. It is submitted that the inquiry conducted

against the petitioner is in accordance with the rules and upon

following the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted

that the petitioner was supplied copy of inquiry report and

only thereafter the show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner. It is therefore denied that it is the case of pre-

determination by the respondent authority. Placing reliance on

the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that present petition

be dismissed.

6. Mr. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel in rejoinder

reiterated the contentions raised earlier. Mr. Tanna, the

learned Senior Counsel relied on page-188 and submitted that

by not examining Shri Shaileshbhai Bhayani, the consumer the

petitioner lost right to cross-examine Shri Bhayani. It is

submitted that the petitioner lost valuable right of cross-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

examination by non-examination of the consumer by the

respondent Company. It is submitted that the prayers as prayed

for are such the same be granted.

6.1 Mr. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel relied on AIR

2021 SC 4554, paragraphs 8 and 12, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that in absence of Tax Collector having been

examined as a witness by leading evidence in support of his

signature having been forged by the respondent, the inquiry

officer arrived at unsubstantiated finding based on no material

but founded on unfounded suspicion.

(b) 2017 (0) LablC 2427, wherein it was held that the

Tribunal grossly erred by observing that the examination of

witness is not required only on apprehension that he would

support the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings which would

be against the interest of the Government.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

that non-observance of principles of natural justice in not

examining complainant and witness who had accompanied

delinquent to the Hospital was not proper.

(d) 2004 (2) GLH 535, wherein it is held that upon non-

supplying of copy of documents the inquiry stands vitiated.

Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, it is further

submitted that present petition be allowed.

7. Ms. Bhaya, the learned advocate relied on the following

decisions :-

(a) Civil Appeal Nos.8546-8549 of 2024, in case of State of

Rajasthan and Ors., vs. Bhupendra Singh.

(b) 1975 (2) SCC 557, wherein it is held that the

departmental authorities are, if the inquiry is otherwise

properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some

legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the

adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a

proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

                       (c)      (2011) 10 SCC 249

                       (d)      (1996) 3 SCC 364, judicial review, principles of natural

                       justice.

                       (e)      (2006) 6 SCC 794, wherein it is held by the Hon'ble

Apex Court that the Court should not interfere with the

administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from

procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of

the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or

moral standards. The scope of judicial review is limited to the

deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision.

(f) (2021) 3 SCC 806, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that if the disciplinary authority accept the finding recorded by

the inquiry officer and passes an order no detailed reasons are

required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.

                       (g)      Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023







                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/2835/2012                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

                                                                                                                undefined

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties the following emerge :-

8.1 The petitioner was allegedly involved in supplying such

circuit to the consumers of the respondent herein which would

result in the theft of electricity. The same is admitted by the

consumer before the respondent as well as the police that such

circuits are supplied and fixed by the petitioner herein. Various

FIRs are lodged against the petitioner herein as well as

consumer indulging in theft of electricity under Sections 135,

138 and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The copies of the

statements of the consumers are duly produced at Annexure-

R3. The petitioner has made a statement before the police

having admitted the offence of supplying the circuit. The

consumer, one Shri Shaileshbhai Bhayani had during the

laboratory inspection given a statement and declared that the

petitioner had come with the box that if it is fixed with wiring

then the consumption would be less and Shri Shaileshbhai

Bhayani was charged Rs.3,000/- for fitting such device.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

8.2 The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the aforesaid

statement Proforma-15 alongwith the charge-sheet, copy of the

Rojkam dated 18.2.2010, copy of Annexure-4 dated 18.2.2010,

copy of the credit gate pass No.1, copy of the meter Rojkam

JRD/008924 dated 19.2.2010, copy of the statement of the

consumer and panchnama and copy of the fax message dated

9.3.2010. The Police was informed for theft of electricity

amounts to offence under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of The

Electricity Act, 2003. The F.I.R. was lodged against the

petitioner as well as the consumer on 9.3.2010. The petitioner

filed reply to the show cause notice on 23.9.2011 removing

the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred

Departmental Appeal to the Managing Director which was

rejected by order dated 8.2.2012.

9. Upon perusal of the record and the documents produced

on record this Court is inclined to pass the following order :-

9.1 The decision of the respondent No.2 to remove the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

petitioner herein from the services by order dated 23.9.2011

which is duly produced at page-56 Annexure-K was challenged

before this Court by preferring the Special Civil Application

No.15092 of 2011 which was dismissed by order dated

21.10.2011 wherein it was held that the petitioner can agitate

and file an Appeal against the order of removal under

Schedule-C of the Board of Employees' Conduct, Discipline and

Appeal Procedure - Annexure-J page-54. The petitioner on

24.11.2011 filed Appeal before the competent authority memo

of which is duly produced at Annexure-L page-58.

9.2 Upon perusal of the contentions raised in the Appeal, it

emerges that the petitioner herein has taken primary

contention while challenging the order passed by the

disciplinary authority dated 23.9.2011 in Ground (C) has

contended that the disciplinary action initiated against the

petitioner by the Inquiry Officer was against the principles laid

down under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The

petitioner has also raised several grounds in the Appeal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

wherein one of the grounds taken by the petitioner before the

Appellate Authority wherein it is contended that during the

inquiry witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet ought to have

been examined prior to the examination of the petitioner.

In the inquiry held against the petitioner, the petitioner

was examined first and thereafter other witnesses were

examined.

The aforesaid is a legal contention raised by the

petitioner as also other grounds raised in the Appeal.

10. This Court has perused the impugned order passed by

the Appellate Authority which is duly produced at Annexure-M

dated 8.2.2012 (page-74) wherein the Appellate Authority has

failed to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner

herein in the Appeal. The impugned order is an unreasoned

order.

11. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner herein has

raised serious and arguable points in the Appeal preferred

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

before the Appellate Authority to which the Appellate

Authority is bound to apply its mind. The ground raised by

the petitioner are legal grounds which are not

answered/considered by the Appellate Authority or answered

all the grounds in the affidavit-in-reply.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by

the Appellate Authority dated 8.2.2012 in the opinion of this

Court is unreasoned and non-speaking order wherein the

contentions raised by the petitioner in the Appeal are not

considered at all or there is absolute non-application of mind

by the Appellate Authority.

13. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary

Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Versus

Jagdish Sharan Varshney, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240,

paragraphs 8 to 11 read thus :-

"8. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case(supra) has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divisional Forest Officer V/s. Madhusudan Rao, 2008 2 JT 253 (vide para 19), and in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. V/s. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 671, siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 (vide para 6), etc.

9. In the present case, since the appellate authority's order does not contain any reaons, it does not show any application of mind.

10. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee V/s. Union of India, 1990 4 SCC 594, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not- Also, giving of reasons

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

minimizes chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.

11. No doubt, in S.N.Mukherjee's case (supra), it has been observed (vide para 36) that:

"..The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."

14. This Court was initially not inclined to entertain present

petition, but considering the legal point raised by the

petitioner herein with respect to the examination of the

petitioner prior to examination of the witnesses, is such that

the same was required to be answered by the Appellate

Authority in accordance with the rules and regulations.

15. This Court relies on the decision in the case of

Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit Versus State Of Gujarat, reported

in (2014) 9 SCC 124, paragraphs-7 to 9 read thus :-

"7. In Sangam Lal V/s. Rent Control and Eviction Officer,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

Allahabad & Ors., AIR 1966 All. 221, while dealing with the rent control matter, the court came to the conclusion that until a judgment is signed and sealed after delivering in court, it is not a judgment and it can be changed or altered at any time before it is signed and sealed.

8. This Court has also dealt with the issue in Surendra Singh & Ors. V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 194 observing as under:

"Now up to the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind. There is a sort of 'locus paenitentiae' and indeed last minute alterations often do occur. Therefore, however much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand, it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the Court. Only then does it crystallise into a full fledged judgment and become operative. It follows that the Judge who "delivers" the judgment, or causes it to be delivered by a brother Judge, must be in existence as a member of the Court at the moment of delivery so that he can, if necessary, stop delivery and say that he has changed his mind. There is no need for him to be physically present in court but he must be in existence as a member of the Court and be in a position to stop delivery and effect an alteration should there be any last minute change of mind on his part. If he hands in a draft and signs it and indicates that he intends that to be the final expository of his views it can be assumed that those are still his views at the moment of delivery if he is alive and in a position to change his mind but takes no steps to arrest delivery.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

But one cannot assume that he would not have changed his mind if he is no longer in a position to do so. A Judge's responsibility is heavy and when a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture; also, a question of public policy is involved. As we have indicated, it is frequently the practice to send a draft, sometimes a signed draft, to a brother Judge who also heard the case. This may be merely for his information, or for consideration and criticism. The mere signing of the draft does not necessarily indicate a closed mind. We feel it would be against public policy to leave the door open for an investigation whether a draft sent by a Judge was intended to embody his final and unalterable opinion or was only intended to be a tentative draft sent with an unwritten understanding that he is free to change his mind should fresh light drawn upon him before the delivery of judgment."

9. Thus, from the above, it is evident that a Judge's responsibility is very heavy, particularly, in a case where a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. Therefore, one cannot assume, that the Judge would not have changed his mind before the judgment become final."

16. As a general rule, the delinquent should not be

interrogated before the some witness or witnesses have been

examined in support of the charge. The delinquent must be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2835/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025

undefined

given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the

charges and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-

examination as the delinquent desires, then he must be given a

chance to rebut the evidence led against him, depending upon

the facts and circumstances of each case.

17. Ms. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the