Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Prithvi Lal Executive Officer, ... vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 24 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR243
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The petitioner in the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the validity of the order of respondent No. 1, dated August 17, 1987, passed on Appeal No. 646 dated May 23, 1985 primarily on the ground that no reasons have been given by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the appeal.
2. A few relevant facts be stated to appreciate the question raised by the petitioner :
3. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and holds degrees in Master of Arts and Bachelor of Laws. He was appointed as Executive Officer, Grade 11, in Municipal Committee, Faridkot for one year vide order dated May 8, 1973. passed by respondent No. 1. His term was extended till further orders vide order dated May 15, 1974. He was transferred and posted in Municipal Committee, Kotkapara in Faridkot District vide order dated November 5, 1975. He was again transferred and posted as Executive Officer, Fazilka vide order dated January, 1977. Vide Notification dated April 6, 1976, issued under Section 38(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act), the Punjab Municipal Service of Executive Officers was constituted. The Petitioner's case was examined by respondent No. 1 under sub section (6) of Section 38 of the Act. The petitioner was not approved for appointment as Executive Officer and was relieved from the post consequent upon the abolition of the post of Executive Officer with effect from Oct. 14, 1976. The petitioner made a representation and respondent No. 1 vide his order dated February 3, 1981 offered him the post of Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 759-1300 and he was appointed as Superintendent, Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran against a vacant post. The petitioner made representation dated August 12, 1981 to respondent No. 2 that his case was not properly considered by the Screening Committee. The representation was accepted and the petitioner was posted as Executive Officer Class III and it was decided that the period of his absence from service wet". June 15, 1977 to August 8, 1981 would be treated as the leave of the kind due to him and it would not be counted towards his experience. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order dated January 19, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2 and he filed a fresh representation, on February, 26, 1982. This representation was not decided but the petitioner was posted in Municipal Committee, Mulaapur vide order dated June 25, 1982. The petitioner again made a representation reiterating his earlier claim on July 20, 1982 and vide order dated October 14, 1983 passed by respondent No. 2, orders sanctioning the leave from June 15, 1977 to August 10, 1981 were issued but it was ordered that this period shall not be treated for the perpose of experience. The petitioner's fresh representation was rejected by respondent No. 2 on March 26, 1985. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal No. 646, dated May 23, 1985 and the same was rejected by respondent No. 1 on August 17, 1987 (copy Annexure P-18).
4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. The plea of the petitioner that his representation and the appeal were disposed of by a non-speaking order was not controverted. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant averment made in the writ petition :-
"Para 18 (v). That the order dated 26.3.85 was passed by respondent No. 2 without giving any ground. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation ; but the same was disposed of by a non-speaking order in one line. Even in the appeal before respondent No. 1, a specific ground was taken that the order was passed without passing any speaking order giving detailed reasons, yet the order dated 17-8-87 rejecting the appeal by respondent No. 1 is non-speaking order. Injustice has not only been done to the petitioner but this has been perpetuated by passing repeatedly illegal and improper orders only to harm and harass the petitioner."
and in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 it is stated as under :--
"Denied being incorrect. The impugned order as annexure P-l6A of the writ petition was conveyed to the petitioner which was issued after proper application of mind."
The brief resume of the facts stated above point out that respondent No. 1 has disposed of the petitioner's appeal in a cursory manner. The petitioner belongs to a scheduled Caste and obtained degrees in Master of Arts and Bachelor of Laws. He was offered the post of Executive Officer Class II. He was working in a Class II Municipality when his case was examined by the Screening Committee appointed under sub-section (6) of Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The Screening Committee did not approve of the petitioner's appointment as Executive Officer but, on representation by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 thought of appointing the petitioner as Executive Officer Class III and thereafter the period w.e f. June 15, 1977 to August 10, 1981 was also treated as leave period and the effect was that there was no break in the continuity of service.
5. Respondent No. 1 while disposing of the statutory appeal of the petitioner ought to have disposed of the same by a speaking order. The order must be self-contained and it must indicate the points raised in the representation and the decision arrived at on it. Aggrieved person must know the grounds which weighed with the appellate authority while rejecting his appeal. The appellate authority is required to deal with the matter objectively and that would have been possible; only if it had considered the objection and disposed of the same on merits. On facts of the instant case, I am satisfied that respondent No. 1 did not correctly decide the statutory appeal of the petitioner.
6. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated August 17, 1987 (Annexure P-18) passed, by respondent No. 1 is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to him and by a speaking order dealing with all the objections raised in the appeal. The matter has been delayed and this has occasioned injustice to the petitioner. It is directed that respondent No. 1 will dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs.