Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nafe Singh vs Haryana Land Reclamation And ... on 17 November, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.19608 of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.19608 of 2001
Date of Decision : 17.11.2014
Nafe Singh ......Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd.
and others ......Respondents
...
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ...
Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in Digest ? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure P-5), whereby the order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner, directing him to retire on attaining the age of 55 years.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 4.2.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager, taking way the sting of punishment order dated 2.7.1998 (Annexure R-1). Petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry. However, disagreeing with the findings recorded by GREESH SAHNI 2014.12.03 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.19608 of 2001 2 the enquiry officer, respondent no.2 passed the punishment order dated 2.7.1998 (Annexue R-1) stopping one annual grade increment of the petitioner, with cumulative effect. He further submits that punishment order is not under challenge before this court. Petitioner is only aggrieved against the impugned order of compulsory retirement (Annexure P-5), because there was no sufficient material against the petitioner, which may declare him a deadwood. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order was non speaking and cryptic one. Orders contained in Annexures P-2 to P-4 would show that different service benefits were granted to the petitioner during this period and finally even the promotion order Annexure P-1 was passed in his favour, which clearly goes to show that respondent no.2 has misdirected himself, while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement and this order is not sustainable in law. Feeling genuinely aggrieved, petitioner submitted his representation dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure P-6), but no order thereon was passed, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. He prays for setting aside the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 12.10.2001, with all consequential service benefits, by allowing the present writ petition.
Neither anybody has come present to argue this case nor any request for pass over has been made on behalf of the respondents.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed herein above, present writ petition deserves to be allowed, for the following more than one reasons.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that vide numerous orders GREESH SAHNI 2014.12.03 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.19608 of 2001 3 passed by the competent authority at Annexures P-1 to P-4, different service benefits were granted to the petitioner, including releasing annual grade increments, allowing the petitioner to cross his efficiency bar and finally he was promoted as Deputy Manager. Order allowing the petitioner to cross his efficiency bar was dated 17.8.1999 (Annexure P-4), whereas the promotion order was dated 4.2.2000 (Annexure P-1). Once the petitioner was allowed to cross his efficiency bar and promotion order was also issued in his favour, learned counsel for the petitioner was fully justified in contending that there was no sufficient material with respondent no.2 for passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement on 12.10.2001 (Annexure P-5) and the same was not sustainable in law.
Whatever was the adverse effect of punishment order dated 2.7.1998 (Annexure R-1), the same had been taken away by abovesaid orders Annexures P-4 and P-1. Period of punishment had also expired. So far as the criminal case was concerned, petitioner stood acquitted therefrom, which is also not in dispute between the parties. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that respondent no.2 failed to consider the entire service record of the petitioner, while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement and the same cannot be sustained.
A bare reading of impugned order of compulsory retirement would show that it was non-speaking and cryptic order. No doubt, respondent no.2 was competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement, but only in public interest. However, respondent no.2 failed to record any reason in the impugned order, much less cogent reasons. There was not even any passing reference of the public interest, for which the impugned order was being passed. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that since the impugned order was GREESH SAHNI 2014.12.03 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.19608 of 2001 4 contrary to the true spirit of the relevant statutory provisions of law, the same cannot be sustained, for this reason also.
By now, hardly any distinction is left in the quasi judicial and administrative order so far as the object of recording of reasons is concerned. Every administrative authority is under legal obligation to record sufficient reasons in support of the order passed. It is so said because there are twin objectives for recording the reasons. Firstly, every person whose cause is being decided by the administrative authority is entitled in law to know, as to what was the reason which weighed with the authority while declining his claim. Secondly, whenever an administrative order is to put for judicial scrutiny, the court is in a position to know as to what was the reason for passing the impugned order, so that the impugned order may get due appreciation from the court to arrive at a judicious conclusion. That is why, reasons are called the soul of the order. An order without reasons is like a body without soul. Since the impugned order has been found without any reasons, whatsoever, the same cannot be sustained.
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 GREESH SAHNI 2014.12.03 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.19608 of 2001 5 has stated:
19....Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless."
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that since the impugned order has been found suffering from patent illegality, the same is hereby set aside. Natural consequences would follow.
Consequently, respondent authorities are directed to grant the consequential service benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If needful is not done within a stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled for the consequential financial benefits @ 9% p.a. from the date it became due, till the date of actual payment.
Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.
17.11.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
GS JUDGE
GREESH SAHNI
2014.12.03 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh