Allahabad High Court
Chandra Shekhar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 4 December, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61365 of 2014 Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Censure entry has been awarded to petitioner on the ground that petitioner had utilised services of minors at the railway station for carrying the dead body. A show cause notice was served to him to which a reply has also been submitted. The explanation of the petitioner has been rejected by saying that decision relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable and that merely because action has not been taken against others would not be a ground to exonerate the petitioner.
A perusal of the order would clearly go to show that the petitioner's reply has not been examined. No reasons have been shown in the order to discard the 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 31.8.2014, 17.6.2014 and 24.4.2013 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 :- 4.12.2019 n.u.