Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 136 (CHH)

P. D. GUPTA v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-05-01

P.SAM KOSHY

body2015
ORDER : 1. The petitioner through the instant writ petition has challenged the Annexure P/1 order dated 17.02.2014 whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner against the adverse entry made in the annual confidential report of the petitioner was rejected. However the impugned order rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioner was by a one line order holding that the entries made by the reporting authority does not call for any change and is maintained as it is. 2. The grievances of the petitioner is that the petitioner subsequent to the adverse entry being communicated had made a detailed representation vide Annexure P/5 dated 29.01.2013 whereby he brought various facts and circumstance to the notice of the higher authorities on the basis of which he had sought for expunging of the adverse entry. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the adverse entry made in his service record would have far reaching adverse consequence on his carrier prospect and therefore, the respondent authority ought to have duly applied his mind on the representation made by the petitioner before rejecting it and that the authority also ought to have given some reason for rejecting the representation so made by the petitioner and therefore, he prayed for quashing of order dated 17.02.2014 Annexure P/1. 4. Counsel for respondents on the contrary submits that it is a case where the representation so preferred by the petitioner against the adverse entry was taken note of by the authorities and on due perusal of the objection and submission made in the representation the authorities have reached to the conclusion that the entry made do not call for any changes. He further submits that there was no requirement of rule or law that while considering the representation it ought to give reasons on the submissions made by the petitioner in his representation and therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be rejected as the representation of the petitioner stood decided. 5. He further submits that there was no requirement of rule or law that while considering the representation it ought to give reasons on the submissions made by the petitioner in his representation and therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be rejected as the representation of the petitioner stood decided. 5. Considering the submission put forth by the both the parties, the fact which is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order Annexure P/l is that the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by a one line order as is reflected from paragraph-3 of the impugned order wherein the only observation made by the authorities concerned is that on consideration of the representation against the adverse entry made in the service record of the petitioner, it does not call for any changes. The fact is that, the adverse entry would have far reaching adverse effect on the carrier and the future prospect of the petitioner. 6. That the petitioner having made the representation before the higher authorities against the adverse entry made in the A.C.R, the competent authority ought to have at least applied his mind while disposing of the said representation or at least while deciding the said representation it should appear that there is same form of application of mind and the submission put forth by the petitioner in his representation has been duly considered which is not reflected from the perusal of the Annexure P/1. 7. It is settled position of law that when the competent authority has been approached by way of a representation or an appeal the authorities concerned is duty bound to decide the same objectively and with due application of mind by a speaking order which in the instant case is a lacuna. 8. It is also a well settled principle of law that every order passed by quashi judicial authority, must be speaking and reasoned. The reason is the very life of law. When the reasons of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases. Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as voids uncertainty, to quote Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as voids uncertainty, to quote Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principle are also with a greater degree of precision applicable to administrative or executive actions. The concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and. in fact is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. The order so passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders. 9. Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that not only judicial or quasi judicial order but even the administrative order affecting the civil rights of the citizens, should be reasoned one to cope with the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Unreasoned order creates unstability and distrust in peoples mind towards the administration or the authority who has passed such order. In democratic polity, there is no scope to pass an order affecting civil rights of the citizens which may be unreasoned. It is constitutional obligation and right of the citizens to know the reasons in the decision making process I affecting their right or cause. 10. Recently in the case of East Coast Railway and anther Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others with K. Surekha v. Mahadeo Appa Rao and others, 2010 (7) SCC 678 , the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms as held that Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. It is nobody's case that any such reasons were set out even in any contemporaneous record or file. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing the order. 11. In view of the fact that the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 Annexure P/1 apparently being a non-speaking order, in the opinion of this Court, the same does not deserves to be sustained and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned for taking a fresh decision on the representation Annexure P/5 preferred by the petitioner against the adverse entry made in his A.C.R in the year 2012. 12. Needless to mention that it is expected that the authorities concerned shall take a prompt decision on the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/5. 13. With the aforesaid observation the instant writ petition is allowed and is disposed of.