Allahabad High Court
Constable Kailash Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 20 November, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27836 of 2015 Petitioner :- Constable Kailash Nath Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is a Constable. He is aggrieved by awarding of censure entry to him for the year 2009, on the ground that he misbehaved with three Tennis Players, which created a law and order. The order records that three persons were traveling on a Motorbike wearing Tracksuit. The petitioner stopped them and whereafter a scuffle appears to have happened in which criminal proceedings were also initiated by lodging a First Information Report. So far as the criminal case is concerned, petitioner has already been acquitted on 21.2.2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Case No.3318 of 2018. An appeal preferred in the matter has also been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his action in stopping unauthorized movement of three passengers on a Motorbike was not illegal for any reason, and that his defence placed before the authorities by way of reply to the show cause notice has not been considered. It is submitted that absolutely no reasons have been disclosed for discarding petitioner's reply.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court finds substance in the argument advanced on behalf of petitioner, inasmuch as there is no consideration of petitioner's reply in the order impugned while awarding censure entry to the petitioner. In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.23290 of 2017 has been pleased to pass following orders on 24.5.2017:-
"By the impugned order, the petitioner has been found guilty and he has been awarded a censure entry in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and it does not disclose any reason, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted detailed representation on 28.04.2016. The authority concerned without adverting to his reply has rejected it by single order that his reply was found "Asantoshjanak" (Unsatisfactory). He submits that no reason has been assigned in the matter, hence, the order is arbitrary.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is well settled law that an administrative/quasi judicial order must contain reason in support of the conclusion and in absence of the reason, the order become arbitrary.
The Supreme Court in long line of decisions has settled the view that recording the reasons is an essential feature in administrative decision. Recording the reasons also checks the State functionaries to act fairly and restrain them from arbitrary exercise of their administrative or quasi judicial power. The reasons in support of decision must be cogent and clear, which can demonstrate that authority concerned has applied his mind. Reference may be made to the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785; Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496; Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87; S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519; Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785.
In view of the said settled law, I find that the impugned order which is cryptic and skeletal, needs to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law, expeditiously.
In view of the fact that from order itself, it is evident that no reason has been mention, no useful purpose would be served to grant time to learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of."
In view of the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.5.2017, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms. Orders dated 28.6.2009 and 12.3.2015 stands set aside. Matter stands remitted for a fresh consideration of cause after examining the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, keeping in view the observations made above.
Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Anil