J.P. Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.03.2005 (Annexure P/8) whereby the petitioner has been implicated with punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The challenge also is to the order dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the appellate authority who has decided the appeal of the petitioner.

The primary contention which the petitioner raises is that the order passed by the appellate authority is not sustainable as it is a non speaking order and no reasons whatsoever have been given by the appellate authority. That, it is a one line order of rejection of appeal. Therefore the same deserves to be remitted back to the appellate authority for reconsidering the grounds that the petitioner has raised in his appeal. He relied upon the decision of this court in case of Nasir Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WP No.2615 of 2005, decided on 27.02.2017).

The State counsel on the contrary opposing the petition submits that it is a case where the order of disciplinary authority is a speaking and reasoned order taking into consideration all the contentions and submissions of the petitioner and as such there was no scope of further interference. The appellate authority also found the order of the disciplinary authority to be a reasoned order meeting the challenges raised by the petitioner in his objection, and therefore he has rejected the appeal not fining any merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer the impugned order dated 27.07.2010 whereby the appellate authority after giving factual matrix of the case in the operative part of the decision holds as under :

''.........कलेक्टर जांजगीर-चांपा द्वारा अपीलार्थी को सुनवाई का समुचित अवसर प्रदान करते हुए अपीलार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्पष्टीकरण समाधानकारक नही होने पर छ0ग0 सिविल सेवा ;वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण तथा अपीलद्ध नियम 1966 के तहत 3 वेतनवृद्वि संचयी प्रभाव से रोके जाने एवं निलंबन अवधि का जीवन निर्वाह भत्ते के अतिरिक्त कोई भुगतान न किये जाने की शास्ति अधिरोपित करने का आदेश पारित किया गया जो विधि सम्मत होने से स्थिर रखा जाता है। अपीलार्थी का अपील सारहीन होने से अमान्य की जाती है।''

If we read the said operative part of the impugned order, it would reveal that it is only one line rejection order of the appeal. It is the last line of the decision in the appeal which says that the appellate authority does not find any merits in the appeal whereas in the entire order there is no observation or reasons given to any of the contentions which have been raised by the petitioner in his appeal filed on 02.05.2005.

The contention that reasons to be spelt-out in an administrative order is now no longer res integra as it has been decided by catena of decisions that even if the officers on the administrative side pass an order, they are supposed give reasons while deciding the same. The appellate authority cannot reject an appeal only on the ground of finding the appeal to be without merit without discussing or dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal. Giving reasons is an indispensable component of decision making process and the same equally applies upon quasi judicial authority and even upon the administrative bodies.

In the case of East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others with K. Surekha Vs. Mahadeo Appa Rao and Others (reported in 2010 (7) SCC 678), the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order.

Likewise, again in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers (reported in 2010 (4) SCC 785), the Supreme Court has held that "recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the authority in rejecting him claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that order."

Taking into considering the aforesaid legal positions as it stands and also taking note of the contents of the order of the appellate authority dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P/1), this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was a total unreasoned order and the appellate authority-the Commissioner, Bilaspur, has shown total non application of mind while deciding the appeal and also has not kept in mind the basic requirement of appellate authority while deciding the appeal. The impugned order dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) is thus not sustainable. The same deserves to be and is hereby set aside/quashed.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal of the petitioner dated 02.05.2005 in accordance with its merit. It is expected that the appellate authority shall now decide the appeal and pass fresh order preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.