Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Krishan Kumar on 12 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035245
2024:PHHC:035245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 RSA-622-1997 (O&M)
Decided on : 12.03.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . .Appellant
Versus
KRISHAN KUMAR
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sarabjit SIngh Khaira, Advocate for the respondent.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab
challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by which, the
suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff challenging the punishment order
dated 20/30.10.1992 by which, his two increments without cumulative
effect were stopped, has been allowed.
2. It may be noticed that the respondent-plaintiff, was working as
a bus conductor in Punjab Roadways. While working on the said post,
disciplinary proceedings for imposing the minor punishment were initiated
against the respondent-plaintiff and he was charge- sheeted with the
allegations that on 29.07.1992, when the bus was checked, two passengers
were found traveling without ticket though they had made the payments
towards the fare, which amounts to embezzlement.
3. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent-plaintiff
and ultimately, his two increments without cumulative effect were stopped
by the impugned punishment order dated 20/30.10.1992, which order was
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035245
RSA-622-1997 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:035245
made the subject matter of the civil suit. The trial Court, vide judgment dated
27.03.1995 held that the impugned order of punishment dated 20/30.10.1992
is a non-speaking order as nothing has come on record as to why the
punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed and the suit filed by
the respondent-plaintiff was allowed, which judgment has been upheld by
the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.1996.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts
below have erred in recording the findings that the order imposing the
punishment upon the respondent-plaintiff is a non-speaking order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that once the minor
punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has
been imposed, the same could have been imposed at the time of the issuance
of the show cause notice and in the present case, it has already come on
record that the respondent-plaintiff had embezzled the amount while
performing the duties of the bus conductor and keeping in view the report of
the inspecting party, his two increments without commutative effect were
stopped which is a minor punishment, hence, no grievance can be raised by
the respondent-plaintiff and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below on the ground that the punishment order was non-speaking order, is
contrary to the facts and evidence which came on record and the said
judgments and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set-aside.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff
submits that once the reply to the show cause notice was filed, the
respondent-department was under obligation to go through the said reply and
thereafter, pass an order which fact is missing in the present case and the
same has rightly been appreciated by the courts below in allowing the claim
of the respondent-plaintiff.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035245
RSA-622-1997 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:035245
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. The punishment order dated 20/30.10.1992 is on record. A bare
perusal of the said order would show that only the facts have been
mentioned and the reply of the respondent-plaintiff has been declined as
unsatisfactory. Once, certain objections were taken by the respondent-
plaintiff in the reply, the same were required to be adjudicated by the
authorities concerned while passing the punishment order.
9. It is also a settled principle of law as settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India by passing an order in in Civil Appeal No.457 of
1970 titled as 'Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others',
decided on 02.04.1970 wherein it has been held that every order passed by
the authority concerned needs to be reasoned and speaking order. The
relevant paragraph of said judgment of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar'
case (Supra) is 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 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 as they held a licence to carry on
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035245
RSA-622-1997 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:035245
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
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 (perSubba 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 29-4-1969(SC); State
ofGujarat v. Patel Raghav Nath, C.A. No. 723 of 1966,
decided on 21-4-1969 and Prag Das UmarVaishya v.
Union 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 tothe supervisory power of the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution and of the appellate
power of this Court under Article 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035245
RSA-622-1997 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:035245
communicating any reasons".
10. The impugned order dated 20/30.10.1992 which does not give
any reasons for imposing the punishment upon the respondent-plaintiff, being
cryptic in nature cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the said impugned
order dated 20/30.10.1992 has rightly been set aside by the Courts below
being a cryptic in nature and non-speaking order. No perversity in the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below has been pointed out keeping in
view the evidence on record. Hence, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present regular second appeal, hence, the
same stands dismissed.
11. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
