Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116949
CWP-14330-2017 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:116949 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(213) CWP-14330-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision : September 05, 2023
Ishwar Singh .. 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, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-13795-CWP-2018
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Annexures P-13 and P-14 are taken on record.
CWP-14330-2017
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
11.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) by which, the petitioner has been imposed a
punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.
2. Further challenge is to the order passed in the appeal dated
20.01.2017, a copy of which has been appended with this petition as
Annexure P-9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that keeping in view
the settled principle of law, once an appeal has been preferred raising due
objections to the order imposing punishment, the Appellate Authority is
under an obligation to decide all the said objections by passing a detailed
order whereas, in the present case, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116949
been dismissed by passing a totally cryptic order without mentioning the
detailed reasons for arriving at the conclusion.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once a
detailed order of punishment has been passed and the Appellate Authority
has considered the said aspect in the appeal and has passed an order, hence,
the grievance being raised by the petitioner is not correct.
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.1621 of 1986 titled as Ram Chander vs.
Union of India and others, decided on 02.05.1986, that the order passed by
an Appellate Authority in an appeal should be a detailed reasoned order so
as to record as to why the objections raised by the appellant concerned qua
the punishment imposed cannot be accepted so as to have transparency.
The administrative order has to be reasoned one so that the appellant
concerned should know the reasons which weighed with the mind of the
Appellate Authority while passing the order on appeal preferred. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-
"8. So also in Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and Ors. (1977) 2 S.C.R. 198 this Court
observed that there was a vital difference between an order of
reversal by the appellate authority and an order of affirmance
and the omission to give reasons for the decision may not by
itself be a sufficient ground for passing such order, relying on
the test laid down by Subba Rao, J. In Madhya Pradesh
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1966) 1 S.C.R. 466.
"Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional authority shall
give its own reasons succinctly; but in a case of affirmance
where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the
Appellate Tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116949
the case may be, agreeing with those reasons."
9. These authorities proceed upon the principle that in
the absence of a requirement in the statute or the rules, there is
no duty case on an appellate authority to give reasons where
the order is one of affirmance. Here, rule 22 (2) of the Railway
Servants Rules in express terms requires the Railway Board to
record its findings on the three aspects stated therein. Similar
are the requirements under rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Rule
22 (2) provides that in the case of an appeal against an order
imposing any of the penalties specified in R.6 or enhancing any
penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority
shall 'consider' as to the matters indicated therein. The word
'consider' has different shades of meaning and must in r.22 (2),
in the context in which it appears, mean an objective
consideration by the Railway Board after due application of
mind which implies the giving of reasons for its decision."
7. In the present case, a cryptic one line order has been passed
which shows that the appeal has been considered and rejected. This kind of
an order cannot be allowed to be sustained in view of the settled principle of
law noticed hereinbefore.
8. Keeping in view above, the order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure
P-9) is set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law. Let the fresh order be passed within a period of eight
weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
September 05, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116949
3 of 3
