Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 297 (HP)

BRIJESH SOOD v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2012-05-21

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
ORDER : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner has made a detailed representation for the up-gradation of ACRs for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 vide Annexure P-4, dated 22nd July, 2010 and the same was rejected by the Secretary (Home) to the Government of H.P. vide letter dated 4th September, 2010. The State was directed to produce the record and the same has been produced. Letter dated 4th September, 2010, which is at page No. 184 of the records reads as follows:- " I am directed to refer to your office letter No. P-1 (2) BJ/08-34756 dated 3rd August, 2010 on the subject cited above and to covney the rejection of representation made by Sh. Brijesh Sood, DSY, CID, Shimla to review the DPC held on 30th September, 2008. You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter under intimation to this office." 1. Thereafter, the rejection was conveyed to the petitioner by the Director General of Police vide Annexure P-5 on 18th September, 2010. Neither in letter dated 4th September 2010 reasons have been assigned nor in communication dated 18th September, 2010. Once the representation has been made by the petitioner, the pleas/grounds taken in the representation ought to have been taken into consideration by the competent authority. Assigning reasons reflects due application of mind, which is lacking in the present case. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 407 have held that right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the Court. Their Lordships have further held that another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. Their Lordships have held as under: "42. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. Their Lordships have held as under: "42. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. 46. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 3. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and Annexure P-5 dated 18th September, 2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of H.P. to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh by assigning reasons, within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the representation made by the petitioner is considered favourably, the necessary consequential steps, i.e. convening of DPC shall be taken within another 10 weeks. 4. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.