Shiv Kumar v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And Others
!
"# $!%&'&"() * * + ,-&.
/01 2 *** ! & &"(!2 3'* 0(4 5 , !
"6!2 "27"2 &"( 8 $* ($ " -!2'
*** !'7"($!( '
) 98
* , ,
,
:
* + +
! "
#
$ $ "
%&'
(
) * *&*+
," #
,
( * . /
/
" ( (
) * *&*+ "!
- !
"( 0
," # "!
" , , "
/ ! " **23**) $" .
"
/ " certiorari 0
* & *&*#
/
&# *& % -%5 in toto " "
/ " mandamus
6"
"(
+ 7 " inter alia,
-$
# &+ %'
7
7 &# *& +
!
+ &# *& + -*5 "
"
"
* *& /
/!(
"
/
/ (
( *& &1 *&&'
*1 &1 *&&%
* *&
!" / " ""
8 *
* *& ) -+5 " $" * &' *& ) -15 $9- '#1+-*& ) / "
* *& !
/ &# &# *&
% &) *& ) 4," -# :
-2 (5 #
&# *& % -%5
4," -#
-25 / /
"( - 0
& *&*
&5 / / /"
"(
;
& *&*
&5
$9-*%)')-*&*+ / /
& *&*
&5 / ! / /
/
" 0
! / &2
*&*+ *5 /
. " "
** & *&*# /!(
" ! /
"-<Stop 3% cut from his pension with immediate effect." = ( "
!
(
/ ( !
". "
"( /" ! $ = / "
! > (3= !
? $ = 3? 4@ A5 / """ 7 "
"!
*# &' *&*# +5 " 6"
/
" / "
"(
/
! 0
; " Per contra, " "!
" "
!"
" *& & *&*&
'
* *&*& " " /
!
"(- B 1
) * *&*+
"! / (
"( "
( )
"
"
/
!
"
/ " > ( </
$ = ( (
6"
-
"
"
( " ( ! 0
"(
!
"
"! /
"( !
/ "
" ! / <That the Chief Engineer examined/perused the written reply and heard the defence of the employee and passed the following order: "Stop 3% cut from his pension with immediate effect." Therefore, the deduction so being made @3% permanently from the pension of Shiv Kumar, Retired Lineman may be stopped from
the date of this office order.
Therefore, the deduction so being made @3% permanently from the pension of Shiv Kumar, Retired Lineman under rule 26 of Punishment and Appeal Rules 1971 of Punjab State Electricity Board [now PSPCL] may be stopped from the date of this office order.
This order is being issued with the approval of Chief Engineer/ OP (Border zone), Amristar.
Sd/2 Under Secretary/ Estab O/o Chief Engineer/ OP (Border zone), Amritsar" 4
5 '
$ @ $" Suresh Pal Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Limited and others, 2025 SCC OnLine 2205 /
!
- "Category1A Where the punishment order and appellate order are passed by the administrative officer/subordinate officer by stating that they have been passed with the approval of the punishing/appellate authority.
56. It is impermissible for any authority to pass any order whereby that authority is not competent to pass such order under the respective Service Rules or any authority of law. If an order is passed by any administrative officer /subordinate officer by stating that the order has been passed with the approval of the punishing /appellate authority, the same is impermissible, a nullity and coram non1judice being without the authority of law.
In other words, any quasi1judicial or administrative order which is required to be passed can only be passed by the competent authority under the law and not by any subordinate authority by simply stating that the competent authority has approved the same."
+ % ;" "
- $ =
( " " /"
(
"( ( / D" @ E! " $" Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 0
6"
- "
" .
" 0
"
D" 0 F" " ( /
/ - "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 quasi2judicial 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 quasi2judicial 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, quasi2judicial 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 life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi2judicial 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 quasi2judicial 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 'rubber2stamp 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 (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 7312737). 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 EHRR 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".
& . / "
!
/
* & *&*# !(
-
"(
Kranti AssociatesE 4supra5
Suresh PalE 4supra5 /
(
"( ! ;" 0
! ( /
=
* $"
#&&&&3- " -$7 ( ! /
, / "( / B -
/" !
!( , ! (
"
( ! " $ -"-
"
!
/ $ 7
+
"
45
(
> ,
?
&1 &* *&*2 vishnu 9 0 3 H3B 9 !
H3B