Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Mmrda Officers Association, Kedarnath ... vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional ... on 10 December, 2004
14. Recording of reasons has been held to be essential and right to reason has also been held to be indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Even in administrative matters, giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 (2) SCC 235 (MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Anr.) reiterated its earlier judgment namely Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar , wherein Lord Denning's observation on assigning reasons were emphasized. It would be expedient to note excerpts from said para, which reads as follows:
Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003
14. Recording of reasons has been held to be essential and right to reason has also been held to be indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Even in administrative matters, giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 (2) SCC 235 (MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Anr.) reiterated its earlier judgment namely Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar , wherein Lord Denning's observation on assigning reasons were emphasized. It would be expedient to note excerpts from said para, which reads as follows:
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 2 April, 1970
In M/s. Mahabir Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. , Hon'ble Supreme Court took a view that administrative orders affecting the right of citizens has to be treated at the same pedestal as of quasi-judicial authority and the orders so passed must be supported by good and adequate reasons particularly when relevant rules granted a right to appeal to the State Government against the order. The practice of executive authority dismissing statutory appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons was held to be a negation of the rule of law and which practice has been severely criticized in a series of cases. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it is supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. The aforesaid law, in our respectful view, squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
18. It is no doubt true that Competent Authority is at liberty and has discretion not to act upon UPSC's advice. At the same time, it is equally well settled that the discretion is governed by rules and it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, (see S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India ) While exercising the discretion, certain parameters are to be followed.
Reliance Airports Developers P. Ltd. vs Airports Authority Of India And Ors. on 21 April, 2006
As per Para 26 of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, , it was observed that: "'Discretion', said Lord Mansfield in R. v. Wilkes, 'when applied to a Court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular'." In the absence of any records produced before us to justify as to on what basis and reasons, applicant was denied promotion despite recommendations made by UPSC, we are unable to locate the exact reasons for respondents action except to guess that there are no valid and just reasons, which could withstand the test of legal scrutiny.
Lt.Col.V.K.Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 February, 2007
19. We may also note that recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lt. Col. V.K. Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. , was faced with a situation where because of order of punishment of reprimand, promotion was withheld. Initially the Selection Board was not having the said order of reprimand before it and, therefore, it found the appellant suitable and accordingly he was informed that he would get his promotion in due time. However, a caveat was added in the communication that the promotion shall be subject to continuing satisfactory performance. On being noticed the aforesaid punishment of reprimand, a special review board was called and that fresh input was placed before the Board, as a result of which, he was not found suitable and ultimately could not be promoted. Said action of the respondents was upheld. However, the Hon'ble Court observed that though the punishment of reprimand, which had been recorded in the service record will continue be the part of same, but in future if there is improvement in his performance that can always be reviewed by the authorities. If the facts of present case, and the issue raised are tested in view of aforesaid observations, we would find that penalty order dated 12.5.2000 was taken into consideration by the DPC concerned yet it recommended, and rightly so, for promotion. Under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 penalties are bifurcated into two heads "minor penalties" and "major penalties". Withholding of promotion as well as withholding of increments are two distinct and separate penalties, which fall under the head "minor penalties". It is well settled that more than one penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously. If the penalty of withholding of increment is allowed to operate as affecting his promotion, it would tantamount to inflicting another penalty of withholding promotion, which is clearly impermissible in law. Moreover, applicant had been promoted to the grade of Chief Engineer (Civil) against the vacancies of the year 2005-06, though his claim is (for promotion against the vacancy year 2004-05. In other words, there is an addition of only one more latest ACR and elimination of one year's earlier ACR, while considering his case for promotion against the vacancy year 2005-06. A perusal of applicant's ACR Folder reveals his grading from 1998 onward as follows:
Article 323 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Mrs. Asha Kaul And Anr. Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 15 April, 1993
13. The Constitution has created Union Public Service Commission and assigned it various functions outlined under Article 320. UPSC has to be consulted as per Clause 3 of Article 320 on all matters relating to method of recruitment to Civil Services and in making promotions on suitability of the candidate for such appointments/promotions. Examination of Articles 317-320 makes it evident that Constitution contemplates the Commission to be an independent and effective body outside the Government control. This is an instance of application of basic tenet of democratic Government vis-a-vis diffusion of running power. The idea is not to concentrate the power in the hands of one person, authority or organ. In the light of this Constitutional Scheme, one has to examine whether Government has absolute power to reject, differ or disapprove its recommendations. Union Public Service Commission is an expert body and its function is purely advisory. Neither Commission's advise is binding upon Government nor can Government act mechanically upon such advice without applying its mind to the matter in question e.g. the recommendations made by it. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , has held that construed in the above light, no rule or law confers an absolute power upon the Government to disapprove or cancel the recommendations made by UPSC. However it added a caveat stating that: