Orissa High Court
Mayadhar Sahoo vs A. State Of Odisha And Others on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No.1227 of 2019
Mayadhar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. H.P. Rath, Adv.
-versus-
A. State of Odisha and Others ... Opp. Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
08.11.2023
Order No
10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia
with the following prayer.
<(i) The orders at Annexure-10 and 12 be quashed/set
aside.
(ii) The proceeding at Annexure-1 be dropped.
(iii) Consequently the respondents be directed to
release the incremental benefits that has been withheld
by the impugned order at Annexure-10 and to give
promotion to the applicant no next higher post/s from
the date of promotion of his juniors.
(iv) Accordingly refix and pay the pension and other
post retirement benefits within a stipulated time.=
4. In course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner contended that against the order of punishment so
passed under Annexure-10, Petitioner though preferred a
detailed appeal under Annexure-11, but the appellate authority-
Opp. Party No.1 without proper appreciation of the grounds
taken and without assigning any reason whatsoever rejected the
appeal vide order dt.25.06.2018 under Annexure-12.
4.1. It is contended that since no reason has been assigned by
Opp. Party No.1 while rejecting the appeal, the said order is
liable for interference of this Court. It is also contended that
// 2 //
reason is the soul of any order and in absence of any such
reason, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.2. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Rath, learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this
Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-
87. This Court in Para-8 and 10 of the said judgment reported
in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not
contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and
cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res
intergra that an authority must pass a reasoned
order indicating the material on which its
conclusion are based.
10. Reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and
without the same it becomes lifeless. (see Raj
Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510)=.
4.3. This Court in Para 13 of the judgment reported in 2013
(Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:
<13. After giving our anxius hearing to the
matter and keeping in mind the position of law and
the CCA Rule, we are constrained to hold that the
learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in
the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal
smacks of application of judicial mind and
conscience. It is to be remembered that the
reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of
reasons could lead to dual infirmities, firstly, it
may cause prejudice to the affected party and
secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper
administration of justice. The orders of the Court
must reflect what weighed with the Court in
granting or declining the relief claimed by the
Petitioner.=
5. Even though counter affidavit has been filed by Opp.
Party Nos.1 & 2 , but it is fairly contended by the learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate that the appellate authority has not assigned
any reason while rejecting the appeal vide order dt.25.06.2018
under Annexure-12.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that against
the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner
// 3 //
under Annexure-10, Petitioner preferred a comprehensive appeal
before Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-11. The Appellate
authority as found from the order at Annexure-12 while rejecting
the appeal has not assigned any reason.
6.1. Placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra and since
no reason is assigned by Opp. Party No.1, while rejecting the
appeal, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order so
passed on 25.06.2018 by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-12.
While quashing the order under Annexure-12, this Court remits
the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to consider the appeal in
accordance with law and pass a reasoned order by providing
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Such a fresh decision
be taken within a period of four (4) months from the date of
receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2023 13:08:56
