Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 441 (JHR)

Udit Narayan Rai v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-02-13

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is against the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by Commissioner, Santhal Paragna Division whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision being statutory right the same is supposed to be decided by reflecting reason therein but the revisional authority without assigning any reason rather in two lines it has been rejected, therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Mr. Vineet Prakash, associate counsel of learned S.C.(L&C) for the State-respondent has argued by referring to the counter-affidavit more particularly paragraph-15 that the entry has been made in record of rights without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, there is conspiracy in getting the entry into the record of rights as such the revision has been rejected. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon appreciation of the rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner was working as ''Pradhan'' and for commission of some irregularities in discharge of official duties and application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer upon which, a report was sought for from the Circle Officer, Ramgarh in which it has come that the petitioner has not discharged his duties deligently and, therefore, recommendation was made to discharge him from the post of ''Pradhan'', against which, revision has been preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Paragna Division which has been rejected without assigning any reason. 5. It is cardinal principle of law that without assigning any reason, the order will be said to be not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. It is equally settled that the appellate authority or the revisional authority is not required to assign detail reason but the substantial reason is to be assigned in the order so that the decision taken could be reflected from bare reading of the order. 7. In absence of the order there would be violation of principle of natural justice. 8. Considering the aforesaid legal position and taking into consideration, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Paragna Division wherein without assigning any reason, the order passed, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. 7. In absence of the order there would be violation of principle of natural justice. 8. Considering the aforesaid legal position and taking into consideration, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Paragna Division wherein without assigning any reason, the order passed, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 23.06.2016 is quashed, in consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Paragna Division to pass fresh order within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.