Ranbir Singh vs Unknown on 13 February, 2009

C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009                                     ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                     C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009
                                     Date of decision : February 13, 2009



Ranbir Singh,

                                            ...... Petitioner (s)

                         v.

The State of Haryana and others
                                            ...... Respondent(s)

                               ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the

respondents whereby the petitioner has been punished on account of the fact

that a person in his custody escaped. Originally, the penalty imposed upon

the petitioner was stoppage of five increments with permanent effect which

has in appeal/revision been reduced to stoppage of two increments with

permanent effect.

Counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments.

Firstly, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and secondly the

revisional order does not contain any reasons.

C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::2::

As regards the first contention, there is a catena of judgments

which lay down that mere acquittal in a criminal case could not be a ground

for holding a delinquent employee not guilty in departmental proceedings.

As regards the second contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

Raj Kishore Jha vs State of Bihar and others, 2003(11) SCC 519, wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-

“…. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without

the same it becomes lifeless….”

It may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder

Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others, (2006) 4

SCC 713, held in para 33 as follows:-

“An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of
the disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order
but the authority passing the same must show that there
had been proper application of mind on his part as
regards the compliance with the requirements of law
while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the
Rules.”

Further, in Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of

Delhi and others reported as (1977) 1 SCC 472 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as follows:-

“In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India,
this Court repelled the contention of counsel for the
appellant that every order appealable under Article 136
of the Constitution must be a speaking order and the
omission to give reasons for the decision is of itself a
sufficient ground for quashing it and held that an order of
an administrative tribunal rejecting a revision application
cannot be pronounced to be invalid on the sole ground
that it does not give reasons for rejection. While
C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::3::

distinguishing the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala where the Central
Government reversed the decision of the State
Government without giving reasons for reversal, this
Court pointed out that there was a vital difference
between the order of reversal by the appellate authority
and the order of affirmance by the revising authority and
that if the revising authority rejects a revision application
stating that there was no valid ground for interference
with the order of the subordinate authority in such a case,
it could not be held that the order was arbitrary or that
there was no trial of the revision application. Subba Rao,
J. ( as he then was) speaking for himself in that case
observed:

Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall
give its own reasons succinctly; but in a case of
affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate
reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or
the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with those
reasons.”

In S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India reported as (1990) 4

SCC 594 the Apex Court held as follows:-

“The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case
where the order is passed at the original stage. The
appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an
order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or
revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in
the order under challenge.”

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the revisional

Authority has applied its mind to all the relevant considerations. In view of

the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned above it cannot be

held that the order is illegal.

C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::4::

Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed in limine with no

order as to costs.

                                        ( AJAY TEWARI           )
February     13, 2009.                       JUDGE
`kk'