Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjit Singh Alias Sukhjeet Singh vs Punjab State Vivil Supplies Corp. Ltd. ... on 18 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
269+270
(i) CWP-3181-2023
Date of Decision : 18.04.2024
Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhjeet Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. and another .....Respondents
(ii) CWP-3217-2023
Date of Decision : 18.04.2024
Major Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Sunnint Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This order will dispose of the above mentioned both the
petitions as the similar question of law and facts are involved therein.
Facts of the case are being taken from CWP-3181-2023.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari
for quashing the order dated 20.07.2022/Endst. dated 09.08.2022
(Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby recovery of
Rs.2,26,906/- has been inflicted upon the petitioner and the order Endst.
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2024 20:56:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3181-2023 and 2
CWP-3217-2023
dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1-Appellate
Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
punishment order has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from
the other grounds which have been taken in the present writ petition,
one of the ground to challenge the order Endst. dated 25.01.2023
(Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority is that the same is
cryptic and non-speaking order as none of the points raised in the appeal
has been considered. He submits that the said order is liable to be set
aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Appellate Authority
for reconsideration.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
could not justify the passing of the impugned order by the Appellate
Authority which is totally cryptic and non-speaking.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents.
6. The show cause notice dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure P-1)
was issued to the petitioner under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Rule 19 of the said Rules, deals
with "Consideration of Appeal", which reads as under:-
"19. Consideration of appeal-(1) In the case of an appeal
against an order of suspension, the appellate authority
shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule
4 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the
order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or
revoke the order accordingly.
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2024 20:56:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3181-2023 and 3
CWP-3217-2023
(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing of
the penalties specified in rule 5 or enhancing any penalty
imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall
consider -
(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has
been complied with, and if not, whether such non-
compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions
of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;
(b) whether the findings of the punishing authority are
warranted by the evidence on the record, and
(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is
adequate or severe;
and pass orders -
(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the
penalty; or
(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or
enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such
direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the
case;
Provided that -
(i) the Commission shall be consulted in all cases where
such consultation is necessary;
(ii) to (iv) XXXX XXXX XXXX"
7. The concluding para of the impugned order Endst. dated
25.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority reads as
under :-
"PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
(A STATE GOVT. UNDERTAKING)
SCO 34-36, SECTOR-34, CHANDIGARH.
ORDER
Sh. Major Singh, Inspector-II, PUNSUP, Ferozepur.
SCN No. and date Amla-Moga(549)-2020/16738
Dt. 15.01.2021
Punishment order no. and date Amla-Moga(549)-2022/3357
Dt.09.08.2022.
Date on which the Appeal was filed 17.09.2022.
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3217-2023
Appellant appeared before the Appellate Committee.
After discussion, the appellate Committee decided to confirm
the punishment awarded by the then Managing Director.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Jasvir Singh, Gurpreet Singh Kang, Balbir Singh Pannu,
AGM(Vigilance), SBI Asstt. Director, Chairman
12.12.2022 F&S Deptt. Pb. 12.12.2022"
12.12.2022
8. Perusal of the order reproduced above would show that
none of the points raised by the petitioner in his detailed appeal dated
17.09.2022 (Annexure P-5) has been considered by the Appellate
Authority.
9. The respondent/authorities were under legal obligation to
assign cogent reasons while passing the impugned order Endst. dated
25.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) so that this Court, while exercising its
power of judicial review, may be in a position to know as to what were
the reasons weighing in the mind of the authority, while passing the
impugned order. It is so said because the aim of the rules of natural
justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage
of justice. Since the horizon of natural justice has been constantly
expanding in the recent past, hardly any visible distinction is left in the
functioning of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, so far as the
necessity of recording the reasons is concerned. That is why reasons are
called the soul of a judgment.
10. The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support
from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Phal v. State
of Haryana : 2009(1) SCC (L&S) 645. The relevant observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in Ram Phal's
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3217-2023
case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read
as under:-
"The duty to give reasons for coming to a decision is
of decisive importance which cannot be lawfully
disregarded. The giving of the satisfactory reasons is
required by the ordinary man's sense of justice and also a
healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over
others. This Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
has stated:
19....Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
Without the same, it becomes lifeless."
11. Again, while dealing with the question of demarcation
between the administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders and the
requirement of adherence to natural justice as well as recording reasons,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the broad guidelines in this
regard, in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another
Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others : (2010) 9 SCC 496. The relevant
observations made in para 47 of the judgment, which aptly apply in the
present case, read as under:-
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds :
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done
it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint
on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3217-2023
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by
the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.
(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.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful
to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp
reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua
non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency
in decision making not only makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of
Judicial Candor).
(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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3217-2023
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v.
University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article
6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given
for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due
process".
12. Same view was held in judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai
Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others :
2009(4) SCC 240. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced
as under :-
"5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not
contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal but
that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not
contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision
in Prabhu Dayal Grover case has itself stated that the
appellate order should disclose application of mind.
Whether there was an application of mind or not can only
be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned
in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot
accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need
not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain
some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know
whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while
affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
6. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court
in Divl. Forest Officer Vs. Madhusudhan Rao (vide SCC
para 20: JT para 19) and in M.P. Industries Ltd. Vs.
Union of India, Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd.
Vs. Union of India (vide SCC para 6 : AIR para 6), etc.
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3217-2023
7. In the present case, since the appellate authority's
order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any
application of mind.
8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the
judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are
disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority
has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons
minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an
essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons,
at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-
judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.
9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case, it has been
observed that : (SCC p. 613, para 36)
"36. ... The appellate or revisional authority,
if it affirms such an order, need not give separate
reasons if the appellate or revisional authority
agrees with the reasons contained in the order under
challenge."
The above observation, in our opinion, really means
that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate
reasoning as contained in the order of the original
authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even
brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance.
To take a contrary view would mean that appellate
authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one line orders
stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority.
10. For the same reason, the decision of this Court in
State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan (vide AIR para 15)
has also to be understood as explained by us above.
11. Hence, we agree with the High Court that reasons
should have been contained in the appellate authority's
order."
13. Similar views have been observed in Ram Chander Vs.
Union of India and others : 1986(3) SCC 103, Sengara Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and others : 1983(4) SCC 225, State of U.P
Vs. Raj Pal Singh : 2002(1) SCT 205 as well as judgments of this
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051889
2024:PHHC:051889
CWP-3217-2023
Court in case Gulab Singh Vs. Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak and others : 2005(1) PLR 440, State of Punjab Vs. Pargat
Singh through LRs : 2004(3) RSJ 604, Nafe Singh Vs. Haryana Land
Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd. and others : 2016(1)
SCT 212, Pritam Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board : 1995(2)
SCT 754 and R.S. Bhatti vs State of Haryana : 2001(2) SCT 1156.
14. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand and
respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court, it is unhesitatingly held that since the appellate order is
cryptic and non-speaking, it cannot be sustained. The respondent/
authorities have failed to discharge their legal obligation and acted in
violation of the above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained for this
reason as well.
15. In view of the facts as mentioned above and law position as
discussed, the present petitions are allowed. Impugned order Endst.
dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Appellate Authority in
both the cases, are set-aside and both the cases are remanded back to the
Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in view of the observations
made hereinabove and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law
within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
18.04.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
