Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited … on 26 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
245
CWP-17901-2022
Date of Decision : 26.09.2024
Jagjit Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate for
Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari,
quashing the order dated 19.08.2020 (Annexure P-4), whereby
punishment of 10% cut in pension for 03 years has been imposed upon
the petitioner and his suspension period has been ordered to be treated
as non duty period and was regularized and the order dated 10.12.2020
(Annexure P-6), whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against the
punishment order dated 19.08.2020 has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from
the other grounds which have been taken in the present writ petition,
one of the ground to challenge the order dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure P-
6), passed by the Appellate Authority, is that the same is non-speaking
order as the grounds taken in the appeal dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure P-
5) have not been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal. He
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
CWP-17901-2022 2
further submits that the said order is nonest in the eyes of law and is
liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the
Appellate Authority for reconsideration after affording an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
fairly conceded that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is
non-speaking and ambiguous and has no objection to the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Appellate
Authority shall reconsider the appeal of the petitioner in accordance
with law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents.
5. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were
initiated under Punjab State Power Corporation (Punishment and
Appeal) Regulations, 1971 and thereafter, under Regulation 8, charge-
sheet dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) was issued against the
petitioner. However, Regulation 26, deals with “Consideration of
Appeal”, which reads as under:-
“26. CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS
(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of
suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in
the light of the provisions of Regulation 4 and having regard
to the circumstances of the case of suspension is justified or
not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.
(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing
any of the penalties specified in Regulation 5 or enhancing
any penalty imposed under the said Regulation, the appellate
authority shall consider :-
(a) whether the procedure laid down in these
regulations has been complied with and if not,2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336CWP-17901-2022 3
whether such non-compliance has resulted in
the violation of any provision of the
Constitution of India or in the failure of
justice;
(b) whether the findings of the punishing authority
are warranted by the evidence on the record;
and
(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty
imposed is excessive, adequate, inadequate or
severe;
(d) whether the facts on which the order was
based, have been established;
(e) whether the facts established afford sufficient
ground for taking action and pass orders.
(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting
aside the penalty; or
(ii) remitting the case to the authority which
imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any
other authority with such direction as it may
deem fit in the circumstances of the case;
Provided that :-
(i) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate
authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties
specified in clause (v) to (ix) of Regulation 5 and an
enquiry under Regulation 8 has not already been held in
the case, the appellate authority shall subject to the
provisions or Regulation 14 itself hold such inquiry or
direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with the
provisions of Regulation 8 and thereafter, on a
consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, make
such orders as it may deem fit;
(ii) If the enhanced penalty which the appellate
authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties
specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Regulation 5 and an
inquiry under Regulation 8 has already been held in the
case, the appellate authority shall, make such orders as it
may deem fit; and
(iii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be
made in any other case unless the appellant has been given
a reasonable opportunity as far as may be in accordance3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336CWP-17901-2022 4
with provisions of Regulation 10 of making a
representation against such enhanced penalty.”
6. I have perused the impugned order dated 10.12.2020
(Annexure P-6), passed by the Appellate Authority and the same reads
as under :-
“As Sh. Jagjeet Singh, (AJE) (Retd.) (ID no.
234188) (DOB 03.09.1962) who was working at Addl.
Supervisory Engineer Focal Point Division (Special)
PSPCL Ludhiana, a charge sheet no. C-85 dated
15.04.2019 was issued to him for the mistakes/negligence
committed by him while he was working there, the decision
of which has been made by the appropriate authority i.e.
Dy. Chief Engineer/ Operations, Central Zone, Ludhiana
vide order no. 337 dated 19.08.2020 and 10% cut has been
imposed in the pension of the retired employee for 3 years
and suspension period has been ordered to be non duty
period.
As Sh. Jagjeet Singh, AJE (Retd.) (ID no. 234188)
(DOB 03.09.1962) had preferred an appeal against the
order no. 337 dated 19.08.2020 before Hon’ble Chief
Engineer/Operations Central Zone, Ludhiana and by
keeping in view the application given by the employee and
on personal hearing on 02.12.2020, it has been decided
that the appeal filed by Sh. Jagjeet Singh, AJE (Retd.) (ID
no. 234188) (DOB 03.09.1962) is filed and the order given
vide order no. 337 dated 19.08.2020 is upheld.
This is issued with the permission of Chief
Engineer/Central Zone”
7. Perusal of the order reproduced above would show that no
points raised in the appeal dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure P-5) have been
considered and dealt with by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the
appeal filed by the petitioner.
8. The respondent/authorities were under legal obligation to
assign valid and cogent reasons while passing the impugned order dated
10.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) so that this Court, while exercising its
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
CWP-17901-2022 5
power of judicial review, may be in a position to know as to what were
the reasons weighing in the mind of the authority, while passing of the
impugned order. It is so said because the aim of the rules of natural
justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage
of justice. Since the horizon of natural justice has been constantly
expanding in the recent past, hardly any visible distinction is left in the
functioning of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, so far as the
necessity of recording the reasons is concerned. That is why reasons are
called the soul of a judgment.
9. The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support
from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Phal v. State
of Haryana : 2009(1) SCC (L&S) 645. The relevant observations made
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in Ram Phal’s
case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read
as under:-
“The duty to give reasons for coming to a decision is
of decisive importance which cannot be lawfully
disregarded. The giving of the satisfactory reasons is
required by the ordinary man’s sense of justice and also a
healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over
others. This Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
and others : (2003) 11 SCC 519 has stated:
19….Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
Without the same, it becomes lifeless.”
10. Again, while dealing with the question of demarcation
between the administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders and the
requirement of adherence to natural justice as well as recording reasons,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the broad guidelines in this
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
CWP-17901-2022 6
regard, in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another
Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others : (2010) 9 SCC 496. The relevant
observations made in para 51 of the judgment, which aptly apply in the
present case, read as under:-
“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 quasi-judicial 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 quasi-
judicial 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, quasi-judicial 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 lifeblood of judicial decision-making
justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial 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.
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
CWP-17901-2022 7
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial 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 ‘rubber-stamp
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 Haward Law Review 731-737).
(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 EHHR 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”.
11. Same view was held in judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai
Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others :
2009(4) SCC 240. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced
as under :-
“7. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not
contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal but
that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not
contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336CWP-17901-2022 8
in Prabhu Dayal Grover case has itself stated that the
appellate order should disclose application of mind.
Whether there was an application of mind or not can only
be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned
in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot
accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need
not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain
some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know
whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while
affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The view
we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divl. Forest
Officer Vs. Madhusudhan Rao : JT 2008 (2) SC 253 (vide
para 19) and in M.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India :
AIR 1996 Supreme Court 671, Siemens Engg. & Mfg.
Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India : AIR 1976 Supreme
Court 1785 (vide para 6), etc.
8. In the present case, since the appellate authority’s
order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any
application of mind.
9. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India : (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must
have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial
authorities.
10. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person
know whether the authority has applied its mind or not?
Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of
arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the
rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be
disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is
an order of affirmation.
No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case (supra), it has
been observed that : (vide para 36)
“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.”
11. The above observation, in our opinion, really means
that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate
reasoning as contained in the order of the original
authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
CWP-17901-2022 9
brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance.
To take a contrary view would mean that appellate
authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one line orders
stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority.
12. For the same reason, the decision of this Court in
State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan : AIR 1996 Supreme
Court 1827 (vide para 15) has also to be understood as
explained by us above.
13. Hence, we agree with the High Court that reasons
should have been contained in the appellate authority’s
order.”
12. Similar views have been observed in Ram Chander Vs.
Union of India and others : 1986(3) SCC 103, Sengara Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and others : 1983(4) SCC 225, State of U.P
Vs. Raj Pal Singh : 2002(1) SCT 205 as well as judgments of this
Court in case Gulab Singh Vs. Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak and others : 2005(1) PLR 440, State of Punjab Vs. Pargat
Singh through LRs : 2004(3) RSJ 604, Nafe Singh Vs. Haryana Land
Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd. and others : 2016(1)
SCT 212, Pritam Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board : 1995(2)
SCT 754 and R.S. Bhatti vs State of Haryana : 2001(2) SCT 1156.
13. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand and
respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and this Court, it is unhesitatingly held that since the appellate order is
non-speaking, it cannot be sustained. The respondent/authorities have
failed to discharge their legal obligation and acted in violation of the
above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as fairly
conceded by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore,
impugned order cannot be sustained for this reason as well.
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128336
CWP-17901-2022 10
14. In view of the facts as mentioned above and law position as
discussed, the present petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated
10.12.2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Appellate Authority is
quashed and set-aside and the case is remanded back to the Appellate
Authority for fresh consideration and decision on merits, in view of the
observations made hereinabove and pass speaking order after affording
an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
26.09.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 14-10-2024 02:25:17 :::