Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.K.S.Chauhan vs Chairman on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28066
1 WP-5929-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 6 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5929 of 2014
S.K.S.CHAUHAN
Versus
CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri M.P. Agrawal - learned counsel for respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. That, the arbitrary orders impugned in this petition regarding
major punishment under rule 39(1) (B) (1) of Gramin Bank
(Officers and employees) Service Rules 2010 vide Annexure P/1
and P/2 passed by respondents may kindly be quash.
2. That, charge sheet vide annexure P/3, findings of inquiry officer
and presentation officers vide annexure P-6,7 being contrary to
record and evidence may kindly be quash.
3. Cost of petition be kindly be allowed."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the relevant point of
time, petitioner was posted as Officer MM Class-III in respondent-Bank.
Charge-sheet dated 20.7.2011 was issued against petitioner. Thereafter,
petitioner submitted reply to the said charge-sheet. Without considering the
reply of petitioner, departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
Thereafter, inquiry officer submitted his report and authorities called his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28066
2 WP-5929-2014
reply. Upon inquiry report, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of
reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay while fixing scale of pay at
Rs.25,700/ lowest in scale III from Rs.33,300/- and further directed that
petitioner would be entitled to the next increment only after the lapse of one
year. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure
P/14) before the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that petitioner
mentioned various facts and grounds in the appeal but the Appellate
Authority did not consider the same and by non-speaking order dated
30.7.2014 rejected the appeal preferred by petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Appellate
Authority, who is acting as a quasi-judicial authority, must apply its mind to
the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or
grounds in support of its conclusion, thus, limited his arguments for remand.
In that context, he placed reliance on the matter of Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9
SCC 496.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the
prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner contended that after
recording of its full satisfaction the Appellate Authority had arrived at a
conclusion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was passed
after due consideration and cannot be faulted with, but candidly admitted that
while concurring with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority,
no reasoning had been assigned.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28066
3 WP-5929-2014
6. Relevant part of the appeal rejection order dated 30.07.2014 passed
by Appellate Authority reads as under:-
" ी चौहान ारा तुत अपील म व णत त य का अवलोकन कर उन पर वचार
वमश उपरांत पाया क, ी चौहान ारा क गई अिनयिमतता गंभीर कृ ित क होकर
िस पाई गई है जनके प र े य म अ य एवं अनुशासिनक अिधकार ारा जॉच
कायवाह ववरण तथा जॉच ितवेदन के सम त पहलुओं पर वचार कर िलया गया
िनणय उिचत एवं यायसंगत है । अत: अ य एवं अनुशासिनक अिधकार ारा
करण म िलये गए िनणय ('' ी चौहान के वतमान मूल वेतन 33,000/- म कमी
करते हुए अिधकार म. . णे ी- ।।। के ारं िभक वेतनमान 25,700/- पर लाए जाने'')
म कसी प रवतन /संशोधन क आव यकता प रल त नह ं होती है ।अत: सवस मित
से ी चौहान ारा तुत अपील िनर त क जाती है ।"
7. From perusal of the appeal rejection order dated 30.07.2014, it is
clear that the Appellate Authority, while passing an order rejecting appeal of
a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the
quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The authority must apply its
mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable
reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the appeal
order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
8. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised
with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the
necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its
decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial
authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties
must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28066
4 WP-5929-2014
Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is
relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature
must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the
reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his
conclusion.
10. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced
decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
"7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun
v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382.
However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not
have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot
take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision
must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of
this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N
Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair
Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517" 31.
11. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi
judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of
parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28066
5 WP-5929-2014
paragraph 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The
relevant sub-paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned
decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the
soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v.
Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University
of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred
to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions".
12. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case,
I am left with no choice but to set aside the appeal rejection order dated
30.07.2014 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Appellate Authority and relegate
the matter it to the concerned authority to consider and decide appeal afresh.
If petitioner files the fresh appeal within a period of three weeks, after giving
proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the competent authority shall
pass a speaking order with reasons in accordance with law within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28066
6 WP-5929-2014
13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the matter.
14. With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
