Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Bhagwan vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155426
CWP-27093-2017 1 2023:PHHC:155426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
215 AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-27093-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision:04.12.2023
Shri Bhagwan .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.(Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the
Annual Confidential Reports for various years, adverse remarks have been
recorded, against which the petitioner had filed an appeal, which appeal has been
rejected by the respondent, by passing a totally cryptic and non-speaking order
without giving any reason as to what weighed in mind of the appellate authority
while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the adverse remarks in
the ACRs were within the knowledge of the petitioner and said remarks have
been recorded keeping in view the record of the petitioner and the order in appeal
has been passed on the basis of same though it could have been better worded.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the record with their able assistance.
4. It is a settled principle of law that any executive order has to be a
reasoned order so as to give a reason for arriving at a particular conclusion. It is
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155426
CWP-27093-2017 2 2023:PHHC:155426
settled principle of law even when an appeal is preferred, the same needs to be
decided by giving due reasons and that too by dealing with all the grounds taken
in the appeal. This is for the reason that in case the employee is aggrieved
against the decision, he/she can avail appropriate remedy by knowing as to what
weighed in the mind of the authorities concerned while accepting or rejecting
his/her claim.
5. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.457 of
1970 titled as Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others. can
be placed reliance upon for the said question of law. Relevant paragraphs of
which are as under:-
5. The case discloses a disturbing state of affairs. The authorities
have disclosed by their conduct a reckless disregard of the rights of the
appellants. The order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the
licences was a quasi-judicial; it could be made only on a consideration of
the charges and the explanation given by the appellants. That necessarily
implied that the District Magistrate had to give some reasons why he held
the charges proved, and the explanation unacceptable. When the matter
was carried in appeal, the State Government could at least have acted
with some awareness that citizens have rights which must be protected
against possible arbitrary action by subordinate officials. The District
Magistrate is not made the final authority in cancelling the licence. The
appellants had a right to carry on their business, and they held a licence
to carry on their business they could be deprived of their right by an
executive order supported by good and adequate reasons. The relevant
rules granted a right of appeal to the State Government against that
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155426
CWP-27093-2017 3 2023:PHHC:155426
order, and that implied that the aggrieved party must have an
Opportunity to convince the State Government that the order passed by
the District Magistrate was erroneous. That right could be effectively
exercised if reasons be recorded by the District Magistrate and supplied
to the aggrieved party. If the aggrieved party is not supplied the reasons,
the right to appeal is an empty formality.
6. From the materials on the record it cannot be determined as
to who considered the appeal addressed to the State Government, and
what was considered by the authority exercising power on behalf of the
State Government. The practice of the executive authority dismissing
statutory appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice
the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of
the rule of law. This Court had occasion to protest against this practice in
several decisions: See Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of
India, (1966) 1 SCR 466 (per Subba Rao, J.); Bhagat Raja v. Union of
India, (1967) 3 SCR 302; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narsinghdas
Jankidas Mehta C.A No.681 of 1966 decided on 29.04.1969 (SC); State
of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Nath, C.A. No.723 of 1966 decided on 21-4-
1969 and Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. The Union of India, C.A. No.657
of 1965, decided on 17-8-1967 (SC). The power of the District
Magistrate was quasi-judicial: exercise of the power of the State
Government was subject to the supervisory power of the High Court
under Art. 227 of the Constitution and of the appellate power of this
Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The High Court and this Court
would be placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given, and
the appeal is dismissed without recording and communicating any
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155426
CWP-27093-2017 4 2023:PHHC:155426
reasons.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed in appeal dated
30.01.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No.1 attached at page
No.33 with the writ petition would show that the Government had rejected the
appeal filed by the petitioner and that too by single line without giving any
reason for arriving at the said conclusion. In the appeal filed, copy of which has
been appended as Annexure P-7, the petitioner has taken certain grounds to
challenge the decision of the authorities concerned in recording the adverse
remarks in annual confidential reports. It was incumbent upon the Government
to deal with the said pleas while passing an appropriate order in appeal so as to
give reason for not accepting the pleas raised by the petitioner in his appeal. That
being so, the order dated 30.07.2017 at Annexure P-8 is set aside.
7. The case is remanded back to the authorities concerned to pass a fresh
speaking order as required under the law. Let the fresh order be passed within a
period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
04.12.2023
shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155426
4 of 4
