Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 189 (ALL)

SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-01-30

YATINDRA SINGH

body2002
YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE question involved in this case is, whether the practice of merely communicating the operative portion of an order and not the complete orders along with reasons (If any) is justified in law. the Facts and the Decision ( 2 ) THE petitioner was class four employee in Ghaziabad Judgeship. He was dismissed from service on 18. 8. 2000. He filed an appeal under Rule 7 of the U. P. Court Staff (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1976 (The Rules ). This appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Judge. The petitioner was informed about dismissal of his appeal by the letter dated 6. 8. 2001. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri R. K. Srivastava counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Sudhir Agrawal for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The letter dated 6. 8. 2001 merely informs the petitioner that his appeal has been dismissed but neither the reasons for the order are disclosed, nor the reasoned order has been sent along with the letter. According to Sri Agrawal, it is the practice to communicate the result of the order and reasons are never communicated, unless the Court so directs. ( 4 ) THIS raises the question as to why reasons are recorded ; for whom a judgment is written? justice Michael Kirby says (on writing Judgments The Australian Law Journal--Volume 64 page 691) : "it is interesting to reflect upon the fact that, despite the seven century tradition of the common law, there is no agreement upon the audience for whom a Judge writes his or her judgment. The losing party is frequently said to be a primary focus of concern. The winner will often have little interest in the reason for success, usually being convinced of the rightness of the cause anyway, but the loser is entitled to have from the Judge a candid explanation of the reasons for the decision. This is not only for the exercise of any appeal rights that may exist. It is also to uphold the intellectual integrity of our system of law which must daily demonstrate, by its performance in particular cases, its adherence to the law, attentiveness to argument, Impartiality and logical reasoning. " ( 5 ) HOW will a person know the reasons if they are not communicated? It is also to uphold the intellectual integrity of our system of law which must daily demonstrate, by its performance in particular cases, its adherence to the law, attentiveness to argument, Impartiality and logical reasoning. " ( 5 ) HOW will a person know the reasons if they are not communicated? If reasons are recorded for fairness, for the fact the person should know how his case has been dealt with, then they are recorded to be communicated to him and not for keeping them on file. In case disclosure of reasons is not against public interest or the reasons are not privileged under any law, then there is no justification in withholding them from the person concerned. So is the case here. There is no justification in withholding the reasons. They should be supplied immediately. Few Suggestions ( 6 ) ONE can take judicial notice of the fact that authorities often communicate the result, but not the reasons as in the present case. Sometimes even the result is not communicated ; sometimes orders are filed along with counter-affidavit in the contempt petitions. Many writ petitions are filed in this Court for direction to the authorities to supply copies of the reasoned order ; as a matter of fact there should not be any. This practice of not communicating the reasons is incorrect, it is harassment, and entails unnecessary expenditure of money. Sooner it is dropped, the better it is and the High Court should set an example. ( 7 ) THIS practice of not communicating reasons is followed at other parts of the world. This question was considered by the Committee of the Justice All Souls Review of Administrative law in the United Kingdom, which recommended as follows : "in the end we have concluded that it would be best to follow the Australian model by creating a statutory right to obtain reasons on demand. This does not mean that we would discourage the voluntary provision of reasons accompanying the decision. Wherever this can easily be done and the circumstances are appropriate, we consider such a practice highly desirable. Nevertheless, we would confine our statutory requirement to a duty to give reasons following a demand. There is. of course, no reason why the demand for reasons should not be made before the decision is rendered and we certainly would not wish to say anything against this practice. Nevertheless, we would confine our statutory requirement to a duty to give reasons following a demand. There is. of course, no reason why the demand for reasons should not be made before the decision is rendered and we certainly would not wish to say anything against this practice. " (Administrative justice Some Necessary Reforms, page 72 ). ( 8 ) THE Committee also recommended exceptions when reasons may not be communicated. They are as follows : " (a) Where the giving of reasons would be prejudicial to the Interests of national security, defence, or international relations ; (b) Where the reasons would involve disclosing material protected by legal privilege ; (c) Where the reasons would disclose information made available to Government in confidence (this heading would cover such matters as decisions as to the awarding of commercial contracts, licences, and similar privileges) ; (d) Where the reasons would reveal professional or trade secrets or otherwise be hurtful to the interests of third parties ; (e) Where the decision of which reasons were sought related to the appointment to or promotion in any post or office or to the assignment of any specific task. " (Administrative Justice Some necessary Reforms page 73 ). ( 9 ) THE State may consider enacting law or framing rules for supplying copies of the reasoned orders or the reasons for the same and not merely result of the order to an aggrieved person unless it is against public interest or is privileged under any law. An aggrieved person may make this request before or after the decision. This may be done along with duly stamped self-addressed envelope so that the order could be communicated not only at the correct address but also at its earliest. Conclusion ( 10 ) MY conclusions are as follows : (i) Authorities should communicate not only result of the order but the complete order along with reasons (if any) to the person concerned unless it is against public Interest or is privileged under any law. The order may indicate relevant provisions under which order is passed, departmental remedy if any along with the period of limitation. (ii) The practice followed by the respondents in not communicating the complete order is wrong. They may supply the complete order along with reasons (if any) for dismissing the appeal within two weeks from date of the receipt of application in this regard. (ii) The practice followed by the respondents in not communicating the complete order is wrong. They may supply the complete order along with reasons (if any) for dismissing the appeal within two weeks from date of the receipt of application in this regard. It may be given personally to the petitioner or supplied to him by post on his submitting duly stamped self-addressed envelope. (iii) The Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad, will ensure that in future, complete order along with reasons (if any) is also communicated to the aggrieved person unless it is privileged under any law or its disclosure would be against public interest. (iv) I have not judged the validity of any order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file another writ petition, if so advised.