Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 396 (MP)

Dinanath Dhote v. State of M. P.

2013-03-21

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2013
Judgment: Being aggrieved by the order of punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect passed by the Collector, district Mandsaur on 31.03.2005 Annexure P-5, and further aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2006, Annexure P-7, passed by the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Ujjain Division, this petition has been proffered. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short, but substantial issue that the appellate authority has not discussed the points as raised by them and without assigning any reasons confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority, while dismissing the appeal vide order Anneuxre P-7. However, such an order is un-sustainable in law. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Vs. Registrar General, M.P.High Court, Jabalpur reported in 2005 (2) MPLJ 51 . 3. Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State has made an effort to satisfy this Court that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is in conformity with the provisions of law and no interference is warranted, but unable to satisfy this Court that the order dismissing the appeal was passed by the Appellate Authority, after discussion of the material available on record and assigning reasons. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it appears that the appellate authority, while passing the order Annexure P-7 dated 3.05.2006 has referred the facts in para 4 stating that the reply to the show cause notice was filed belatedly after giving opportunities and warning and thereafter referring the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissed the appeal. It is to be observed here that while exercising quasi judicial powers, Courts are required to discuss the point raised before them and assigning reasons, supported by law, bound to pass the orders in detail. In this regard guidance may be taken from the judgment of Mohd. Idris (Supra). 5. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 3.05.2006, Annexure P-7 is set aside. It is directed that the appellate authority shall reconsider the appeal and after affording opportunity of hearing shall pass an order in detail, considering the proposition of law laid down in the judgment of Mohd. Idris(Supra). In the facts and circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.