Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50482 of 2000 Petitioner :- Dev Raj Singh Respondent :- Superintendent Police Azamgarh & Another Petitioner Counsel :- H.P.Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 16.05.2000 (Annexure no. 4) passed by respondent no.
1(Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh).
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner after attaining the age of
superannuation, retired on 31.07.1999, thereafter petitioner approached the
authorities concerned for the payment of post retiral dues but no heed has
been paid in the matter in question, as such the petitioner approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 34959 of 2000, by order dated 07.01.2005
the same was disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the order
passed by this Court, the order dated 16.05.2000 (Annexure no. 4) passed by
respondent no. 1, is illegal arbitrary and no reasons whatsoever has been
given thereby for not paying the GPF and leave encashment etc. for which
petitioner is entitled under law, so the same is in-contravention to the
principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the impugned order dated 16.05.2000 (Annexure no. 4)
passed by respondent no. 1, it transpires that no reason has been given while
passing the said order rather the same is unreasoned and non-speaking order.
It is settled proposition of law that not only administrative order but also
judicial order must be supported by a reason recorded in it because the
reasons are like a wire which connects the mind of the decision making
authority and the decision given by him and if the link or wire 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 so as
to come to the conclusion on the basis of which the impugned punishment is
awarded. The said requirement is also in accordance with the principles of
natural justice as an employee against whom the impugned decision is taken
should know that under what circumstances the same is taken.
In the case of Secretary and Curator Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others, (2010) 3 SCC 732, Apex Court has
held that reasons is the heart beat of every conclusion, it introduces clarity in
an order and without assigning the same, it becomes lifeless reasons substitute
subjectivity by objectivity.
In view of the above said facts as in the present case no reason whatsoever has
been assigned or given by the respondent no. 1 while passing the impugned
order dated 16.05.2000,so the same is against the principle of natural justice,
cannot sustained and liable to be quashed.
Further, keeping in view the facts of the present case, the interest of justice
will sub serve if the opposite party no. 1 is directed to consider the grievance
which is raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Accordingly, petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation within a period
of two weeks from today annexing all the relevant documents and material in
support of his case as well as self addressed stamped envelop before the
opposite party no. 1(Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh) and the said
Authority after receiving the representation of the petitioner, dispose of the
same within further period of six weeks with reasoned and speaking order and
communicate the same to the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 16.05.2000 passed by
respondent no. 1 is quashed, writ petition is allowed with the above said
directions.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :-
12.7.2010/Krishna/*