Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar Sekhri vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059341
CWP-18696-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:059341
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218 CWP-18696-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.04.2024
Satish Kumar Sekhri
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
* ****
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahjan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated
04.02.2016, Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No.2 vide which recovery has
been ordered to be made from the petitioner and for directing the respondent
department to release his gratuity alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
2. Learnedcounselwouldcontendthatasubstantialamountofrecovery
from the petitioner i.e. Rs.25,39,738.50 paise had been ordered vide impugned
order dated 04.02.2016, Annexure P-7 and his gratuity was also not released,
againstwhichhefiledanappealbeforetheAuthorityin2017.However,thesame
was rejected without assigning any reasons, vide order dated 28.02.2017,
AnnexureR-2/T,copyofwhichhadalsonotbeenfurnishedtohimandhebecame
aware,onlywhenthesamewasappendedalongwiththewrittenstatementfiledto
thepresentpetition.Hepraysforlibertytosupplementtheappealandsubmitson
instructionsfromthepetitionerthathewouldbesatisfiedifthematterissentback
to the concerned authority and decided afresh taking into account the aforesaid.
3. Learned State counsel is unable to support the order passed
dismissing the appeal. However, prays that the appellate authority would not be
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059341
CWP-18696-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:059341
-2-
averse to having a relook and pass it afresh in accordance with law.
4. On hearing learned counsel on either side, it is apparent that the
appeal filed bythepetitioner,againsttheorderofrecovery,wasdismissedbythe
authority by passing a laconicandnon-speakingorder.
5. It is imperative that whenever adecisionistakenbyaquasi-judicial
authority, it must display attributes of a judicial order.Similarobservationswere
made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs.
State of U.P., (1970) 1 SCC 764, that to ensure that the decision is reached in
accordancetolawandnotonthegroundofpolicyorexpediency,norisaresultof
any caprice, whim or fancy, it is obligatory for quasi-judicial authority to
recording of reasons in support of it.
6. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Dev Kumar,
Constable vs. State of Haryana, 2014(1) S.C.T. 215, wherein orders passed by
the appellate authority were set side due to application of independentmindand
failed to record any reason, much less cogent, by the authority in support of its
order.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while condemning the mechanical way
of dismissing an appeal under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968, held in Ram Chander vs. UnionofIndia,(1986)3SCC103,that
the context in which the word "consider" appears in Rule 22(2), mustmeanthat
the Railway Board shall duly apply its mind and give reasons foritsdecision.It
was further observed that duty to give reasons is an incidence of the judicial
process and therefore, in discharging quasi-judicial functions, the Appellate
Authority must give reasons for its decision, in accordance with principles of
natural justice.
8. It has been observed in a catena ofjudgmentsthateveninordersof
affirmation, reasons are to be recorded by thejudicialorquasi-judicialauthority,
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059341
CWP-18696-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:059341
-3-
to ensure minimum chances of arbitrariness and to depict application of mind.
Revertingtothecaseathand,appealbeingasubstantiveright,itwasnecessaryfor
the Appellate Authority to have dealt with the grounds that were raised while
layingachallengetotheorderofrecovery,sincethepointofviewofanauthority
higher than the one, the order of which was appealed against, would enable the
Court also to have a better conspectus of the matter.
9. The terse nature of the impugned order, highlights the conspicuous
deficiency in consideration by the appellate authority, while arriving at the
decision, which otherwise should have been self-contained, speaking and
reasoned.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 28.02.2017issetaside.As
prayed,thepetitionerispermittedtosupplementthegroundstakenwithinaperiod
of four weeks, in such eventuality, the appellate authority to decide the matter
afresh, taking note of the pleas raised therein, else based on the original appeal,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is clarified that nothing
observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
3 0.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
