Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnaresh Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 September, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 6445 of 2016
Between:-
RAMNARESH SINGH TOMAR S/O
LATE SHRI JOR SINGH TOMAR, AGE
57 YEARS, OCCUPATION- OFFICE
ASSISTANT GRADE-2, MADHYA
PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA
VIDHYUT VITRAN COMPANY
LIMITED MORENA, R/O- MADHYA
PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD
CAMPUS, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ENERGY MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MUKHYA MAHA PRABHANDAK/
MUKHYA ABHIYANTA (GWALIOR
CHETRA) MADHYA PRADESH
MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT
VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED, MOTI
JHEEL GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MAHA PRABHANDAK
(SANCHA/SANGHA) MADHYA
PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA
2
VIDHYUT VITRAN COMPANY
LIMITED, MORENA CIRCLE,
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. UP-MAHAPRABHANDAK
NAGAR DIVISION-UTTAR GWALIOR,
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA
KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LIMITED GWALIOR,
DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIL SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
^^¼v½ ;g fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 3 }kjk fnukad 04-10-
2014 dks tkjh fd;s x;s vkjksi i= dks fujLr dj
fn;k tk;s ,oa bl vkns'k }kjk dkVs x;s osru dks okil
fnyk;k tk;sA
¼c½ ;g fd] fnukad 14-07-2015 dks ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo:)
dh x;h foHkkxh; tkap fujLr dj iqu% lgh :i ls
foHkkxh; tkap djkus dk vns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;saA
¼l½ ;g fd] e-iz- flfoy lsok oxhZd`r fu;a=.k rFkk vihy
fu;e 1966 ds rgr izfr;kfpdk Øekad 3 }kjk dh x;h
tkap ds fu"d"kZ ess jksdh x;h nks okf'kZd osru
o`f);ka ,oa [email protected]& :0 dh olwyh dks ls osru ls
dkVus dk vkns'k fujLr dj ;kfpdkdrkZ dks vkfFkZd
gkfu ls cpk;k tk;sA
¼n½ ;g fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 2 }kjk fnukad 20-06-
2016 dks izLrqr vihy esa ikfjr n.Mkns'k dk vikLr
djus dk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkosaA
¼b½ ;g fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 3 }kjk fnukad 06-11-
2015 vkns'k Øekad [email protected]&[email protected]
01&[email protected]@7095&96 esa ikfjr n.Mkns'k dks fujLr
dj ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fof/kd ykHk fn;k tk;sA
¼Q½ ;g fd] vU; dksbZ Hkh lgk;rk tksfd ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; dks mDr izdj.k esa mfpr nf'kZr gksrh gS]
fnyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA**
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that departmental
enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was saddled with the
punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Against
the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed
by order dated 20/06/2016.
A solitary ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that
the order passed by the Appellate Authority lacks reasons and the same has
been passed merely by saying "that the entire record is examined and
accordingly, after considering the opinion given by the General Manager as
well as after considering the case in sympathetically, the punishment
imposed by the competent authority appears to be appropriate." It is
submitted that this clearly shows that the appellate authority had not applied
its mind and has dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner.
Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the
respondents No.2 to 4. However, Shri Anil Sharma could not point out any
reason, which persuaded the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal filed
by the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The only question, which arises for the consideration in the present
petition is as to whether the appellate authority is required to decide the
appeal by assigning any reason or not.
It is well established principle of law that reasons are heart beat of an
order and only from the reasons it can be deciphered about the facts, which
persuaded the appellate authority to take a decision in a particular manner.
The reasons are necessary to rule out the possibility of any mala fide or
arbitrary action. Furthermore, the power of an appeal is not an administrative
in nature and it is quasi judicial in nature and each and every appeal should
be decided by the appellate authority after considering the grounds raised by
the appellant.
The Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer,
Kothagudem and Others Vs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 3
SCC 469 has held as under:-
"19. Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties and also having
regard to the detailed manner in which the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt with the
matter, including the explanation given regarding
the disbursement of the money received by the
respondent, we see no reason to differ with the
view taken by the Administrative Tribunal and
endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the
Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in
detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate
authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting
the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar
duty was cast on the revisional authority being the
highest authority in the Department of Forests in
the State. Unfortunately, even the revisional
authority has merely indicated that the decision of
the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined
by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein
the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved.
He too did not consider the defence case as made
out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed
the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to
removal from service."
The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary
Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish
Sharan Varshney and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 has held as
under:-
"5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need
not contain as 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 case [(1995) 6 SCC 279 : 1995 SCC
(L&S) 1376 : (1995) 31 ATC 492] 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.
9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case [(1990) 4
SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669] it has been
observed that: (SCC p. 613, para 36)
"36. ... 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."
The above observation, in our opinion, really
means that the order of affirmance need not
contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the
order of the original authority, but it cannot be
understood to mean that even brief reasons need
not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a
contrary view would mean that appellate
authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line
orders stating that they agree with the view of the
lower authority."
The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Trustee Vs. M/s
Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. by judgment dated 26/07/2018 passed in Civil
Appeal No.7240/2018 has held as under:-
12) After setting out the facts, the Division
Bench proceeded to disposed of the writ petition
with the following observations in its
concluding paras which read as under:
"On due consideration of the aforesaid
on the basis of the fresh documents and
affidavit for taking additional
documents on record, we cannot direct
the establishment to pay damages for
the period from March 2006- April 2010
when all these objections were not taken
before the learned Tribunal.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the
view that the order passed by the
learned Tribunal is just and proper and
no case for interference with the
impugned order is warranted.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner
has no merit and is accordingly
dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
13) In our opinion, the need to remand
the case to the High Court has occasioned for
the reason that the Division Bench dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant
(petitioner) cursorily without dealing with any
of the issues arising in the case as also the
arguments urged by the parties in support of
their case.
14) Indeed, in the absence of any
application of judicial mind to the factual and
legal controversy involved in the appeal and
without there being any discussion,
appreciation, reasoning and categorical
findings on the issues and why the findings
impugned in the writ petition deserve to be
upheld or reversed, while dealing with the
arguments of the parties in the light of legal
principles applicable to the case, it is difficult
for this Court to sustain such order of the
Division Bench. The only expression used by
the Division Bench in disposing of the writ
petition is "on due consideration". It is not
clear to us as to what was that due
consideration which persuaded the Division
Bench to dispose of the writ petition because
we find that in the earlier paras only facts are
set out.
15) Time and again, this Court has
emphasized on the Courts the need to pass
reasoned order in every case which must
contain the narration of the bare facts of the
case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising
in the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the
issues involved and the reasons in support of
the findings on all the issues arising in the
case and urged by the learned counsel for the
parties in support of its conclusion. It is
really unfortunate that the Division Bench
failed to keep in mind these principles while
disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in
our view, has undoubtedly caused prejudice to
the parties because it deprived them to know
the reasons as to why one party has won and
other has lost. We can never countenance the
manner in which such order was passed by the
High Court which has compelled us to
remand the matter to the High Court for
deciding the writ petition afresh on merits."
Thus, it is clear that while affirming the order of punishment, the
appellate authority may not be under obligation to give elaborate reasons but
it must give some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the
respondents. The appellate authority was also expected to consider each and
every ground raised by the appellant. The appellate authority should not
dismiss the appeal merely by saying that the record was considered/perused.
If the impugned order dated 20/06/2016 passed by General Manager is
considered, then it is clear that the same does not contain any reason. In fact
it has been passed on the basis of opinion given by the General Manager
only.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellate
order passed by the appellate authority cannot be given a stamp of approval.
Accordingly, the order dated 20/06/2016 is hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by
considering each and every ground raised by the petitioner. Let the entire
exercise be completed within a period of three months from today.
With aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Pj'S/-
PRINCEE BARAIYA
2022.09.13
17:41:19 -07'00'
