Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158562
CWP-15866-2021 -1- 2023:PHHC:158562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
256 CWP-15866-2021
Date of Decision :-11.12.2023
Kuldeep Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Ankur Goyat, Advocate for
Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was imposed a punishment vide order dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure P/6)
against which order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in which appeal, order
of punishment was modified to some extent.
2. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the appellate Court,
the petitioner preferred a revision before the Principal Secretary,
Government of Haryana, Transport Department, which was dismissed by
the authority concerned vide order dated 25.11.2020(Annexure P/8) without
giving any reasons and only by mentioning that the appeal has been
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the revision could
not have been dismissed without giving detailed reasons and in the present
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158562
CWP-15866-2021 -2- 2023:PHHC:158562
case, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the
appellate authority has been dismissed without there being any discussions
on the grounds raised before the revisional authority.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the
appellate Court has passed the detailed order, the revisional authority
deemed it fit to pass an appropriate order dismissing the same without giving
reasons.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No.457-1970 titled as Mahabir Prasad
Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 02.04.1970
wherein, it has been held that authorities being quasi judicial authority while
passing an order of punishment, considering an appeal or revision has to
decide the revision/appeal by passing a speaking order so that from the
order, it could be transpired that what weighted in the mind of the authority
concerned to arrive at a particular conclusion so that the employee
concerned should also decide to take appropriate remedy against the said
order. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is as under:-
"5.The case discloses a disturbing state of affiairs. 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158562
CWP-15866-2021 -3- 2023:PHHC:158562
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 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 & Others(1) (per Subba Rao, J.,); Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and
Ors(2); State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Seth Narsinghdas Jankidas
Mehta(2). The State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors.(4); and Prag Das
Umar Vaishya v. The Union of India and Ors.(5). 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 reasons."
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
coupled with the settled principle of law, order dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure
P/8) is set aside, respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order by giving
due reasons within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
December 11, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158562
3 of 3
