Yadwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-11263-2020 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11263-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.01.2025 Yadwinder Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.A. George, Advocate for the petitioner 




  ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the chargesheet dated 09.02.2018, enquiry report dated 04.01.2019, punishment order dated 29.03.2019, whereby punishment of dismissal has been imposed. 2.

Learned Senior counsel submits that there was a specific issue that was raised during the enquiry as well as in the representation, which is in the shape of appeal to the effect that neither the statement of witnesses were given nor the opportunity to cross-examine them granted, for which, reference is also made to the reply to the RTI application dated 18.06.2020, Annexure P-14, regarding the same apparently there is not even a whisper in the order, that was passed by the Appellate Authority, which gives no reasons.

3.

This Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others1 had observed that a single line non-speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia appointment, passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was violative of the principles of Natural Justice.
  




CWP-11263-2020 (O&M) - 24.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others,2 wherein it was held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak and must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx. The authorities are under a legal obligation to give reasons while passing an order, which are the essence and virtually a part of the due process. The principles, as relevant to the present case, laid down therein read thus:

"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.

xx xx xx 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.

xx xx xx 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. xx xx xx"

5.

Administrative authorities must record reasons for their decisions, to help to curb arbitrariness and ensure fairness in decision-making processes, which not only assists the Court in scrutinising the case effectively but prevents a revolving door of appeals to the same institution 6.

As a fall out of the above, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, taking 


CWP-11263-2020 (O&M) - 3note of the representation/appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of four months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7.

Disposed of accordingly.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 22.01.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No