Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 905 (PAT)

Narayan Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-06

NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 2. Sri Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order at annexure-1 passed by the appellate authority is contrary to law and is neither speaking in nature reflecting application of mind nor is in consonance with the direction of this Court given in C.W.J.C. No. 6219 of 2003 vide order dated 19.8.2003 with regard to the issue of proportionality of the punishment. 3. The submission on behalf of the State is thai the appellate order recites that the records have been seen. The appellate order, therefore, calls for no interference. 4. The Court, considering the submission on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the impugned appellate order, is satisfied that the same is not in accordance with law, as an appellate order should be. The order is completely unreasoned and non-speaking in nature. The order does not contain any discussion, albeit even briefly, which could demonstrate application of mind and due consideration reflecting what was passing the mind of the appellate authority. The absence of these factors clearly hinders judicial review. 5. An appellate order, need not contain the entire recital of the case the contention of the parties in elaborate as an original order would be, none-the-less it must however contain a discussion in brief to satisfy the court that appellate authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is open to it to consider the legality and propriety of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, application of mind to the same and then to arrive at a conclusion based on the discussion of the materials aforesaid. The order should not reflect or appear to be mechanical in manner and rhetorical in nature. This reasoning, on which the Court is unable to uphold the appellate order would find support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1994(1) PLJR 235 (Sada Shiv Pandey vs. State Bank of India). 6. In so far as the issue of proportionality of the punishment is concerned, this Court finds that by order dated 19.8.2003 the appellate authority was obliged to consider the gravity of the punishment also. 6. In so far as the issue of proportionality of the punishment is concerned, this Court finds that by order dated 19.8.2003 the appellate authority was obliged to consider the gravity of the punishment also. The appellate order clearly does not reflect any application of mind on consideration to the issue. 7. This Court, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, is thus compelled to hold that the impugned appellate order dated 22.10.2003 is clearly contrary to law and the direction of this Court. The order is thus liable to be interfered with on both counts. The order is accordingly, set aside. 8. Since the order has been set aside not on merits but for reasons otherwise, this Court considers it proper to direct that the matter be now remitted to the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall now be required to pass a fresh order on the appeal preferred by the petitioners. The appellate authority shall also be obliged to afford an opportunity of persona! hearing to the petitioners or through their counsel. The appellate authority shall issue due notice to the petitioners fixing a date for hearing and after service of the same shall proceed to hear the matter. The appellate authority after due compliance Of the direction contained hereinabove shall be required to finally dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 9. This writ application stands allowed with the observation/direction contained hereinabove.