Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
121
CWP-22690-2024
Date of Decision : 09.09.2024
Kuldeep Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. S.S. Surjewala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ
of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure
P-16), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on the
delayed payment of arrears has been rejected and further seeking a writ
of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant interest @ 18% per
annum on the arrears paid to the petitioner for the period from
29.06.2000 to 30.08.2019, on account of increments and pay fixation
after the grant of retrospective promotion to the petitioner.
2. 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 dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-
16), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on the
delayed payment of arrears has been rejected, is that the same is cryptic
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
and non-speaking order as no reasons have been assigned while
rejecting the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the
impugned order is nonest in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside
and the matter may be remanded back to the respondent-department for
reconsideration.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents and has fairly conceded that the impugned
order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-16) is non-speaking and
ambiguous and has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel
for the petitioner and submits that the respondent-department shall
reconsider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents.
6. The impugned order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-16),
passed by the respondent-department reads as under:-
"After careful consideration, Government has decided to
file the matter".
7. Perusal of the impugned order reproduced above would
show that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the claim of the
petitioner.
8. The respondent/department were under legal obligation to
assign valid and cogent reasons while passing the impugned order dated
19.09.2023 (Annexure P-16) so that this Court, while exercising its
power of judicial review, may be in a position to know as to what were
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
the reasons weighing in the mind of the authority, while passing of 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.
9. 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
case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read
as under:-
"6. 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
and others : (2003) 11 SCC 519 has stated:
19....Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
Without the same, it becomes lifeless."
10. 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
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
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 51 of the judgment, which aptly apply in the
present case, read as under:-
"51. 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.
(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.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
(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
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
(1994) 19 EHHR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v.
University of Oxford : 2001 EWCA Civ 405, 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".
11. Same view was taken 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 :-
"7. 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
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.
The view we are taking was also taken by this Court
in Divl. Forest Officer Vs. Madhusudhan Rao : JT 2008
(2) SC 253 (vide para 19) and in M.P. Industries Ltd. Vs.
Union of India : AIR 1966 Supreme Court 671, Siemens
Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India : AIR
1976 Supreme Court 1785 (vide para 6), etc.
8. In the present case, since the appellate authority's
order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any
application of mind.
9. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India : (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must
have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial
authorities.
10. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person
know whether the authority has applied its mind or not?
Also, giving of reasons minimises 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.
No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case (supra), it has
been observed that : (vide 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."
11. 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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
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.
12. For the same reason, the decision of this Court in
State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan : AIR 1996 Supreme
Court 1827 (vide para 15) has also to be understood as
explained by us above.
13. Hence, we agree with the High Court that reasons
should have been contained in the appellate authority's
order."
12. 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
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.
13. 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 impugned order is
non-speaking, it cannot be sustained. The respondent/department have
failed to discharge their legal obligation and acted in violation of the
above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as fairly
conceded by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, therefore,
impugned order cannot be sustained.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117974
14. In view of the facts as mentioned above and the law
position as discussed, the present petition is partly allowed. Impugned
order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-16), passed by the
respondent/department is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the
respondent/department for fresh consideration and decision on merits, in
view of the observations made hereinabove and pass speaking order,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
