AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in the revised cause list.
Heard Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel on behalf of O.P. No. 1.
None present on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.
Facts in brief as submitted by Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher (Sanskrit) on 27.06.1966 in U.P. Sainik School, Lucknow on probation and subsequently confirmed. However, by order dated 17.07.1977 his services was terminated, aggrieved by the same, he agitated his grievance by filling a civil suit. But during the pendency of the civil suit, he retired from services on 30.06.1986 after attaining the age of superannuation.
Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel for petitioner further submits that subsequently by order dated 17.09.1986 passed in the civil suit filed by the petitioner allowed and decreed and his termination order was declared illegal. Aggrieved by the same, official respondent filed first appeal, also dismissed on 13.07.1995.
He further submits that the said orders were not assailed by the official respondents before any higher forum, as such the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1986 passed in the civil suit by which petitioner''s termination has been declared illegal has attained finality, thereafter the execution case has been filed by the petitioner and the matter kept pending on one or other pretext due to lingering attitude adopted by the official respondents.
Lastly, for redressal of his grievances, petitioner approached this Court by filling Writ Petition No. 4412 (SS) of 2003, Mohan Lal Shukla V. State of U.P. and others, disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2008, the operative portion is as under:
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Principal is directed to communicate the petitioner within two weeks form today the entire factual position relating to the dues admissible to the petitioner as well as the rental and penal charges deducted from the petitioner''s post retrial dues. Thereafter, it shall be open to the petitioner to make representation to the Principal within two weeks of filing objection against the decision communicated by the Principal of U.P. Sainik School shall decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the direction given by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4412 (SS) of 2010, O.P. No. 3/Principal, U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow has rejected the petitioner''s representation by means of impugned order dated 31.10.2008, hence present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by challenging the said order.
Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is a non-speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned while deciding the representation of the petitioner. He further submits that even the point which were taken by the petitioner in his representation has not been discussed and decided on merit while passing the impugned order, hence the order dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure No. 1) passed by O.P No. 3 is arbitrary in nature, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that although the matter relates to the U.P. Sainik School, Lucknow, represented by Sri Lalit Shukla, Advocate, but she admits that the order in question is non-speaking order.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the present case.
Needless to mention herein that it is well settled law that an order passed by an authority should be a reasoned one and the objection taken by a person should be dealt with because reasons are like a live wire which connects the mind of the decision making authority and the decision given by him and if this wire/link is broken i.e. to say no reasons are given in the impugned order then it will not be possible to know as what was going in the mind of the decision making authority on the basis of which he has come to the conclusion and passed the impugned order.
In Breen V. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AII ER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx'' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others V. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2005 (99) RD 46 held that one of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
The said requirement is also in accordance with the principles of natural justice as a person against whom the impugned decision is taken should know that under what circumstances the same has been taken and as in the present case, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the opposite party No. 3 by passing the same that on what ground, so the same is violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary in nature and cannot sustain.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 31.10. passed by O.P. No. 3 is set aside, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the O.P. No. 3/Principal, U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow to decide afresh in accordance with law after taking objection which has been filed by the petitioner in support of his case, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.