Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1301 (HP)

Union of India v. Balwant Singh Chandel

2015-09-17

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the judgment and order dated 4.10.2007 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘CAT’) in OA No. 695/HP/05, whereby writ petitioners have been directed to examine the case of the respondent for promotion and Annexures A/1 to A/3 stand quashed (for short ‘the impugned judgment’) on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Respondent has filed the reply. 3. Petitioners have not filed the rejoinder. Thus, the averments contained in the reply have remained un-rebutted. 4. We have examined the impugned judgment made by the CAT. It is apt to produce paras-21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the impugned judgment hereunder: “21. Undoubtedly, provision to prefer appeal is provided under rule 27 of the said rules. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to pass a detailed and reasoned order while meeting all the points raised by the applicant in his explanation which we have not found in the impugned order dated 21.12.04 (A/2). Similarly, the order of the Appellate Authority lacks reasons on the same ground as has been pointed out by us in preceding para with regard to order passed by Disciplinary Authority. Clause (2) of Rule 27 provides as to what should be the consideration of the Appellate authority while deciding the appeal of the delinquent. This rule lays down as under:- “(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider- (a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe.” 22. As is seen from the order of the Appellate Authority, he has not given finding whether Disciplinary Authority has followed the prescribed procedure or not and has not discussed other points to be decided. As is seen from the order of the Appellate Authority, he has not given finding whether Disciplinary Authority has followed the prescribed procedure or not and has not discussed other points to be decided. Appellate Authority has also failed to give due consideration to the explanation given by the applicant in his grounds of appeal vide Annexure A/3 wherein he has also pointed out his supersession on 3.1.05 and his juniors were promoted as AO. The appellate Authority has not whispered a single word as to why his promotion was withheld. Therefore, in our view, this order was non speaking and contravenes the provisions of Rule 27. He has not even satisfied himself that the penalty imposed on the applicant was adequate. 23. We further find force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that in such like cases where allegations are to be proved, oral or documentary evidence is required and once the delinquent has made his explanation, it was required that regular departmental enquiry should have been conducted. We have also not found any document on record with regard to satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority with reasons while he proceeded against the applicant for imposition of minor penalty without resorting to regular departmental proceedings against the applicant. So far as plea of the applicant with regard to withholding of his promotion for the year 2005 is concerned, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 2010, were are of the view that respondents were not right in deferring the case of the applicant for promotion without assigning reasons not to keep it in sealed cover in view of pendency of charges against the applicant. It was rather incumbent upon them to keep the case of promotion of the applicant in a sealed cover. Para 6 of the judgment rendered in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) is relevant to be quoted and reads as under:- “From the materials on the record, it cannot be determined as to who considered the appeal addressed to the State Government, and what was considered by the authority exercising power on behalf of the State Government. Para 6 of the judgment rendered in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) is relevant to be quoted and reads as under:- “From the materials on the record, it cannot be determined as to who considered the appeal addressed to the State Government, and what was considered by the authority exercising power on behalf of the State Government. The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. This court had occasion to protest against this practice in several decision………The power of the District Magistrate was quasi-judicial: exercise of the power of the State Govt. was subject to the supervisory power of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution and of the appellate power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The High Court and this Court would be placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given, and the appeal is dismissed without recording and communicating any reasons.” 25. Be that as it may, now keeping in view that we have held that the charges leveled against the applicant were vague and not specific and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are not supported with reasons and are non speaking orders, this issue raised by the parties has become redundant at this stage. 26. Resultantly, after careful consideration of the matter as discussed above, we quash the impugned orders Annexures A/1, A/2 and A/3 while giving further directions to the respondents to extend all consequential benefits to the applicant as a result of quashing of these orders including consideration of his promotion, if otherwise found eligible. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show how the impugned judgment is bad and whether the petitioners had done the needful as required in terms of the procedure and law applicable, as pointed out in the impugned judgment. He has failed to carve out a case. However, we have gone through the pleadings. The writ petitioners have not made out the case for interference. 6. The writ petitioners have to examine the case of the respondent for the grant of promotion. Thus, it is for them to make decision. 7. He has failed to carve out a case. However, we have gone through the pleadings. The writ petitioners have not made out the case for interference. 6. The writ petitioners have to examine the case of the respondent for the grant of promotion. Thus, it is for them to make decision. 7. Viewed thus, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed and the impugned judgment is upheld. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.