# Allahabad Bank Staff Association v. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labo

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 571
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1004474 of 2010
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-bank-staff-association-v-presiding-officer-central-govt-industrial-51441
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner was accused of
fraudulently
claiming
Leave
Travel
Concession (LTC) by submitting bills for
canceled
tickets-following
disciplinary
proceedings, his special allowance was
withdrawn in dec. 2001-appeals made to
the appellate authority and the Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal were rejectedThe petitioner challenged that issues on
the ground of natural justice principles
not followed and lack of detailed reasoned
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders-Held,
the
appellate
authority
improperly supplemented reasons absent
in
the
original
disciplinary
order,
exceeding its jurisdiction-The High court
ruled that the orders of the disciplinary
authority,
appellate
authority,
and
Tribunal
were
arbitrary,
illegal
and
violative of natural justice-Considering the
prolonged litigation and the petitioner's
retirement, the court declined to remand
the matter for fresh proceedings-Hence,
the court set side the punishment orders
granting consequential benefits.(Para 1 to
35)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,999 of 40,501. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._

2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
571
to examination by the competent authority.
This Court while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has limited jurisdiction of
examining validity of the orders passed by
the authorities. A new question of fact
cannot be entertained for the first time in
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India unless and until the
fact is uncontroverted or is of such nature
that it itself reflects in truthfulness or
sterling
quality
without
any
further
examinations and the petitioner has been
able to demonstrate cogent reasons to the
satisfaction of the Court for not adducing
before the authorities below. It is only in
the limited sphere that in very special
circumstances fresh facts can be considered
in writ petition assailing the order of
statutory appellate authorities. In the
present case, no reason has been stated for
not adducing the evidence before the
District
Magistrate
or
the
appellate
authority for deposit of the arm with the
dealer, and even the document cannot be
relied upon as the same is not a receipt
issued by the dealer. He even did not take
this plea before the trial court and hence
this piece of evidence is not reliable, and is
not of such nature or can be considered for
the first time in a writ under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India.

19. I do not subscribe to the
arguments of petitioner that unless and until
there is a conviction with regard to the
criminal case lodged against the licensee,
the arm licence cannot be cancelled. There
is no connection between exercise of power
under Section 17 (3) of the Act 1959 and
secure a conviction in the trial in relation to
the criminal case lodged against the
licensee. This Court is of the considered
view that the acquittal in the present case,
which was much subsequent to the
cancellation of the arm licence would not
have bearing about the validity of the order
of cancellation dated 10.12.2010.

20. I have gone through the order of
the Licensing Authority and have satisfied
that he has duly considered the existing
conditions for exercising the powers and
duly recorded the satisfaction in this regard.

21. In light of the above, no ground
for interference is made out. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 571
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1004474 of 2010

Allahabad Bank Staff Association
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labo. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
T.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava, Anurag Srivastava,
Gopal Kumar Srivastava

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner was accused of
fraudulently
claiming
Leave
Travel
Concession (LTC) by submitting bills for
canceled
tickets-following
disciplinary
proceedings, his special allowance was
withdrawn in dec. 2001-appeals made to
the appellate authority and the Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal were rejectedThe petitioner challenged that issues on
the ground of natural justice principles
not followed and lack of detailed reasoned
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders-Held,
the
appellate
authority
improperly supplemented reasons absent
in
the
original
disciplinary
order,
exceeding its jurisdiction-The High court
ruled that the orders of the disciplinary
authority,
appellate
authority,
and
Tribunal
were
arbitrary,
illegal
and
violative of natural justice-Considering the
prolonged litigation and the petitioner's
retirement, the court declined to remand
the matter for fresh proceedings-Hence,
the court set side the punishment orders
granting consequential benefits.(Para 1 to
35)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors.. Vs
Prabhu Dayal (1995) SCC 6 279

2. Tara Chand Vyas Vs Chairman & Disciplinary
Authority & ors.. (1997)4 SCC 565

3. S.N. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I.(1991) 4 SCC 594

4. The Secy. & Curator, Victoria Memorial Vs
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & ors.., JT
(2010)2 SC 566 Para 31 to 33

5. Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commr of
Customs, New Delhi (2011)269 E.L.T. 433 SC

6. St. of Ori. Vs Dhaniram Luhar(2004) 5 SCC
568

7. St.of Raj. Vs Rajendra Prasad Jain(2008) 15
SCC 711

8. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs
Crabtree (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC)

9. Smt Darshan Devi @ Darshan Devi Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.. Writ-C No. 890 of 2022

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2
and 3.

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioners have challenged the validity
of award dated 21.01.2010, passed by the
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court (hereinafter referred
to as "the Tribunal") whereby claim of the
petitioner no. 2 - workman has been
rejected and the reference has been
accordingly answered denying the relief to
the petitioner-workman. In the present writ
petition the petitioners have also assailed
the punishment order dated 19.12.2001 as
well as appellate order dated 20.03.2002.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner no. 2 - workman who was
working with the respondent - Bank and
was employed in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti Branch of Allahabad Bank at Gonda
and
was
subjected
to
disciplinary
proceedings on account of the fact that on
18.09.1997, the petitioner - workman has
fraudulently
claimed
Leave
Travel
Concession (hereinafter referred to as
"LTC"). The petitioner after availing the
benefit of LTC, submitted bills for expenses
amounting to Rs.17,553/- which showed
that he had traveled in AC IInd Class from
Gonda to Banglore City, but subsequently it
was found that petitioner no. 2 had infact
cancelled the said ticket and had not
traveled or availed the LTC from Gonda to
Banglore City and had fraudulently claimed
the LTC and accordingly a charge sheet
was issued to him on 13.10.1999. The
enquiry officer was appointed who after
giving due opportunity to the workman
submitted
his
report
on
14.06.2000,
pursuant to which the disciplinary authority
issued show cause notice on 03.01.2001,
2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
573
supplying him the copy of inquiry report to
which the workman duly replied.

4. After considering the reply of the
petitioner - workman the punishment order
was passed on 19.12.2001, by which the
special allowance of the workman was
withdrawn w.e.f. 19.12.2001. The workman
thereafter filed an appeal against the order
of punishment was also rejected on
20.03.2002.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances
that a industrial dispute was raised by the
Allahabad Bank Staff Association on behalf
of petitioner no. 2 - workman and the
question which was referred to the Tribunal
was as to "Whether the action of the
Management
of
Allahabad
Bank
in
imposing the punishment of withdrawal of
special allowance to Shri Ram Lal, Special
Assistant w.e.f. 19.12.2001 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"

6. The Tribunal had considered the
validity of the domestic enquiry and framed
the issue as to "Whether the inquiry officer
conducted the inquiry in utter disregard to
principles of natural justice as alleged in
the statement of claim?" and duly answered
the said issue in favour of the respondents
holding that the workman was given due
opportunity of hearing at all the stages of
the enquiry. A further question was raised
by the workman that the order of
punishment dated 19.12.2001 did not spelt
out any reason and same has been passed in
clear violation of principles of natural
justice.

7. In this regard the Tribunal held that
the legal position is not disputed that order
of disciplinary authority and appellate
authority must be based on recorded
reasons and also held that detailed reasons
have not been recorded in the impugned
orders, but he was satisfied that the
appellate order contained reasons and
therefore it cannot be said that any
prejudice has been caused to the workman
and consequently dismissed the reference
and rejected the claim of the workman.

8. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that he had
vehemently
submitted before all the
authorities including the inquiry officer and
disciplinary authority that inadvertently
cancellation report of ticket had been
annexed alongwith the claim for LTC and it
was only on account of this mistake that
proceedings were initiated and there was no
intention to claim the LTC for the said
travel.

9. The inquiry officer by a detailed
reasoning found that the workman made a
fraudulent claim with regard to his LTC,
where in fact he has purchased the ticket
which was cancelled and without disclosing
cancellation he had claimed the said
amount. The inquiry report as well as reply
of the petitioner-workman were placed
before the disciplinary authority who by
means of order dated 19.12.2001 by a
cryptic and in pre-determined manner,
without even dealing with the charges or
reply or gravity of offence has rejected the
reply of the petitioner and held that he
agrees with the reasoning given in the
inquiry report holding the petitioner to be
guilty.

10. Before the appellate authority it
was again submitted that the order of
disciplinary authority is bereft of any
reasons and that same is in violation of
principles of natural justice and hence
ought to have been set aside. The appellate
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority again itself went into the entire
facts of the case and evidence which was
made available in the inquiry report and
held that the punishment inflicted to the
petitioner was just, fair and reasonable and
rejected the appeal.

11. It has been submitted that once it
is found that the impugned order has been
passed without any reasons then such an
order cannot be sustained and reasons by
the appellate authority or any other
authority cannot be substituted in place
of the reasons of disciplinary authority
and accordingly once infirmity in the
order of punishment is noticed then that
order ought to have been set aside and
such infirm order cannot be made good
looking at the reasons stated in an order
passed at the appellate stage or by the
Tribunal.

12.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents had vehemently opposed the
writ petition. The first issue raised on
behalf of respondents is that there is no
requirement of giving reasons by the
disciplinary
authority
while
inflicting
punishment on an employee. He submits
that once sufficient reasons have been
indicated in the inquiry report and those are
agreed by the disciplinary authority, there is
no requirement of giving any reasons and
order of disciplinary authority, appellate
authority and the Tribunal are reasonable
and valid and there is no infirmity in the
same.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has further relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
and Others Vs. Prabhu Dayal, 1995 SCC
(6) 279 as well as order of the Apex Court
in the case of Tara Chand Vyas Vs.
Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and
Others, 1997 (4) SCC 565.

14. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

15. In the case in hand the
controversy revolves around the order of
punishment dated 19.12.2001. By means of
order dated 19.12.2001 the Assistant
General
Manager
and
Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner-workman has
recorded
that
in
the
inquiry
report
punishment has been proposed and that the
petitioner has been given opportunity of
personal hearing on 09.07.2001 in the
Regional
Office,
Gonda.
All
the
contentions on behalf of petitioner have
been recorded by the Disciplinary authority
including the written statement filed by the
workman, but without considering the
grounds taken by the petitioner, rejects his
contention stating that he does not agree
with the defence taken by the petitioner and
that he has not been able to prove himself
to be innocent and consequently there is no
reqirement of re-consideration of the show
cause notice dated 07.03.2001 and interim
of bi-partite settlement of 1996 Clause
19.5(j) he has removed him from the post
of Special Assistant and also that the
petitioner shall not be entitled to any
allowance of the said post.

16. Perusal of punishment order
indicates that neither has the disciplinary
authority considered the charges levelled
against the petitioner-workman nor the
evidence adduced by the authorities in
support or against the said charge and nor
has the contention of the petitioner been
considered any where in the said order. It is
undisputed that the order is silent with
regard to merits of the case and charges
levelled against the petitioner-workman.
2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
575

17.

It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, this Court has been called
upon in the present case to determine as to
whether such a non speaking order bereft of
any reasoning can be sustained.

18. In order to consider aforesaid
aspect, it has to be considered as to whether
giving reasons is essential or not. The Apex
Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 594, has
held that giving of reasons is a part of
natural justice and it is the reasons which
disclose the mind of the authority who is
taken the decision. In order to indicate that
there has been application of mind the said
order should contain reasons before taken
such a decision.The Court has held as
under :-

"39. The object underlying the
rules of natural justice "is to prevent
miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair
play in action". As pointed out earlier the
requirement about recording of reasons for
its decision by an administrative authority
exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves
this object by excluding chances of
arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of
fairness in the process of decision-making.
keeping in view the expanding horizon of
the principles of natural justice, we are of
the opinion, that the requirement to record
reason can be regarded as one of the
principles of natural justice which govern
exercise
of
power
by
administrative
authorities. The rules of natural justice are
not embodied rules. The extent of their
application depends upon the particular
statutory
framework
whereunder
jurisdiction has been conferred on the
administrative authority. With regard to the
exercise of a particular power by an
administrative authority including exercise
of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the
legislature, while conferring the said
power, may feel that it would not be in the
larger public interest that the reasons for
the order passed by the administrative
authority be recorded in the order and be
communicated to the aggrieved party and it
may dispense with such a requirement. It
may do so by making an express provision
to that effect as those contained in the
Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of
U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions
(Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia
whereby the orders passed by certain
specified authorities are excluded from the
ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion
can also arise by necessary implication
from the nature of the subject matter, the
scheme
and
the
provisions
of
the
enactment. The public interest underlying
such a provision would outweigh the
salutary purpose served by the requirement
to record the reasons. The said requirement
cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such
a case.

40. For the reasons aforesaid, it
must be concluded that except in cases
where the requirement has been dispensed
with expressly or by necessary implication,
an administrative authority exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is
required to record the reasons for its
decision."

19. It is well settled that an order
without valid reasons cannot be sustained.
To give reasons is the rule of natural
justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in the case of The
Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity
and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33
as under :

"31.
It
is
a
settled
legal
proposition that not only administrative but
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the Court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the Court
to record reasons while disposing of the
case. The hallmark of an order and exercise
of judicial power by a judicial forum is to
disclose its reasons by itself and giving of
reasons has always been insisted upon as
one
of
the
fundamentals
of
sound
administration justice - delivery system, to
make known that there had been proper
and due application of mind to the issue
before the Court and also as an essential
requisite of principles of natural justice.
The giving of reasons for a decision is an
essential attribute of judicial and judicious
disposal of a matter before Courts, and
which is the only indication to know about
the manner and quality of exercise
undertaken, as also the fact that the Court
concerned had really applied its mind. "
[Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar
(JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan
Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC
338:2004 (5) SCC 573].

32. Reason is the heartbeat of
every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, it becomes
lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the
order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to
further challenge before a higher forum.
[Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev
Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India
Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle
& Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of
Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh
Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs.
Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328;
Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs.
Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513;
and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada
Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the
recording of reasons is principle of natural
justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It
ensures transparency and fairness in
decision making. The person who is
adversely affected may know, as why his
application has been rejected."

20. Non recording of reasons, non
consideration of admissible evidence or
consideration of inadmissible evidence
renders the order to be unsustainable.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandana
Impex
Pvt.
Ltd.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi ,
2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), held as under :

"8. ....It needs to be emphasised
that every litigant, who approaches the
court for relief is entitled to know the
reason for acceptance or rejection of his
prayer, particularly when either of the
parties to the lis has a right of further
appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware
of the reasons which weighed with the
court in denying him the relief prayed for,
the remedy of appeal will not be
meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can
be subjected to examination at the higher
forums. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram
Luhar2 this Court, while reiterating that
reason is the heart beat of every conclusion
and without the same, it becomes lifeless,
observed thus :

"8.......Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system; reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the
matter before court. Another rationale is
that the affected party can know why the
2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
577
decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is
spelling
out
reasons
for
the
order
made;......."

21. The Supreme Court in State of
Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC
568 while dealing with the criminal appeal,
insisted that the reasons in support of the
decision was a cardinal principle and the
High Court should record its reasons while
disposing of the matter. The Court held as
under:

"8.
Even
in
respect
of
administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R.
In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union,
(1971)2 QB 175, observed:(QB p.191 C)
"The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration." In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice."
"Reasons are live links between the mind of
the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity
by objectivity. The emphasis on recording
reasons is that if the decision reveals the
"inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by
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 to the
matter before 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."

22. Following this very view, the
Supreme
Court in another judgment
delivered on 22-02-2008, in State of
Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain,
(2008)15 SSC 711 stated that 'reason is the
heartbeat of every conclusion, and without
the same it becomes lifeless.'

23. Providing of reasons in orders is
of essence in judicial proceedings. Every
litigant who approaches the Court with a
prayer is entitled to know the reasons for
acceptance or rejection of such request.
Either of the parties to the lis has a right of
appeal and, therefore, it is essential for
them to know the considered opinion of the
Court to make the remedy of appeal
meaningful. It is the reasoning which
ultimately culminates into final decision
which may be subject to examination of the
appellate or other higher Courts. It is not
only desirable but, in view of the consistent
position of law, mandatory for the Court to
pass orders while recording reasons in
support thereof, however, brief they may
be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be
understood in legal parlance as absence of
reasons. While no reasoning in support of
judicial orders is impermissible, the brief
reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of
justice at least at the interlocutory stages
and would render the remedy of appeal
purposeful and meaningful. It is a settled
canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts
are vested with discretionary powers but
such powers are to be exercised judiciously,
equitably and in consonance with the
settled principles of law. Whether or not,
such judicial discretion has been exercised
in accordance with the accepted norms, can
only be reflected by the reasons recorded in
the order impugned before the higher
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court. Often it is said that absence of
reasoning
may
ipso
facto
indicate
whimsical exercise of judicial discretion.
Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article,
"The problem with the Courts: Black-robed
Bureaucracy
Or
Collegiality
Under
Challenge" 42 Md.L. Rev. 766, 782 (1983),
observed as under:-

'My own guiding principle is that
virtually every appellate decision requires
some statement of reasons. The discipline
of writing even a few sentences or
paragraphs explaining the basis for the
judgment insures a level of thought and
scrutiny by the Court that a bare signal of
affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not.'

24. The Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that a losing litigant has a cause to
plead and a right to challenge the order if it
is adverse to him. Opinion of the Court
alone can explain the cause which led to
passing of the final order. Whether an
argument
was
rejected
validly
or
otherwise, reasoning of the order alone
can show. To evaluate the submissions is
obligation of the Court and to know the
reasons for rejection of its contention is a
legitimate expectation on the part of the
litigant.

25. It will be useful to refer words of
Justice Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court of
Queensland,
at
AIJA
Conference
at
Brisbane on 13-9-2002 in relation to
Judgment Writing. Describing that some
judgment could be complex, in distinction
to routine judgments, where one requires
deeper thoughts, and the other could be
disposed of easily but in either cases,
reasons they must have. While speaking
about purpose of the judgment, he said,
'The first matter to consider is the purpose
of the judgment. To my mind there are four
purposes for any judgment that is written:-

(1) to clarify your own thoughts;

(2) to explain your decision to the
parties;

(3) to communicate the reasons
for the decision to the public; and (4) to
provide reasons for an appeal Court to
consider.'

26. Clarity of thought leads to proper
reasoning and proper reasoning is the
foundation of a just and fair decision. In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), the
Court went to the extent of observing that
'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial
of justice'. Reasons are really linchpin to
administration of justice. They are the link
between the mind of the decision-taker and
the controversy in question. To justify our
conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence
of reasoning would render the judicial
order liable to interference by the higher
court. Reasons are the soul of the decision
and its absence would render the order
open to judicial chastism. The consistent
judicial opinion is that every order
determining rights of the parties in a Court
of law ought not to be recorded without
supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order
is not only beneficial to the higher courts
but is even of great utility for providing
public understanding of law and imposing
self- discipline in the Judge as their
discretion is controlled by well- established
norms. The contention raised before us that
absence of reasoning in the impugned order
would render the order liable to be set
aside, particularly, in face of the fact that
the learned Judge found merit in the writ
petition and issued rule, therefore, needs to
be accepted. We have already noticed that
orders even at interlocutory stages may not
2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
579
be as detailed as judgments but should be
supported by reason howsoever briefly
stated.
Absence
of
reasoning
is
impermissible in judicial pronouncement.

27. Reason is the very life of law.
When the reason of a law once ceases, the
law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law
Lexicon). Such is the significance of
reasoning in any rule of law. Giving
reasons furthers the cause of justice as well
as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it
helps in the observance of law of
precedent. Absence of reasons on the
contrary essentially introduces an element
of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give
entirely
different
dimensions
to
the
questions
of
law
raised
before
the
higher/appellate courts. In our view, the
court should provide its own grounds and
reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party
whether at the very threshold i.e. at
admission stage or after regular hearing,
howsoever concise they may be.

28. It is the duty cast upon the
Appellate Authority that even if it is in
agreement with the view taken by the first
Appellate Authority, it should give its own
reasons/findings which may indicate that
there has been application of mind and also
the consideration of grounds raised in the
appeal by the revisionist. In absence of
reasons it is difficult to come to a
conclusion that there has been any
application of mind by the Tribunal and
such an order in the opinion of the Court
cannot be sustained and deserves to the set
aside.

29. This Court in Writ - C No. 890 of
2022 - Smt. Darshan Devi @ Darshan
Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
(decided on 25.03.2022), while deciding
the issue has held as under :

"Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & another v.
Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported
in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that reasons
recorded in any order are the soul of the
order without which an order is clearly
vitiated. The relevant portions of aforesaid
decision are as follows:-

"47.Summarizing
the
above
discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be
done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial
and
quasi-judicial
or
even
administrative power.

(e)
Reasons
reassure
that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and
by
disregarding
extraneous
considerations.

(f)
Reasons
have
virtually
become as indispensable a component
of
a
decision-making
process
as
observing principles of natural justice
by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by
administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process
of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in
all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision-making justifying the principle
that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important
for sustaining the litigants' faith in the
justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent
or
to
principles
of
incrementalism.

(l)
Reasons
in
support
of
decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or ?rubberstamp reasons? is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject
to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)

(n) Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the
said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was
considered
part
of
Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain
[(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para
29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001
EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention
of
Human
Rights
which
requires, ?adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions?.

(o)
In
all
common
law
jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore,
for
development
of
law,
requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a
part of ?due process?."

30. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Apex Court has relied upon the judgment in
the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of
India (supra), where the Court has
categorically held that unless "recording
reasons" has been dispensed with by an
administrative authority in exercise of
judicial or quasi judicial functions, he/she
is required to disclose reasons. The case of
the petitioner is clearly distinguishable, as
no such provision has been brought on
record or evidence placed before this Court
which can demonstrate that with regard to
employee of the respondents, requirement
of recording reasons has been dispensed
with.

31. Once this Court comes to a
conclusion
that
the
order
inflicting
punishment was bereft of any reasons, then
the same is rendered arbitrary and illegal
and liable to be set aside. The appellate
authority while considering the appeal
preferred by the delinquent workman was
only looking into the validity of the order
of disciplinary authority. The appellate
authority was exercising its jurisdiction as a
Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, looking
into the validity of the order of punishment
with regard to grounds raised by the
delinquent workman. It was open for the
appellate authority to either agree with the
grounds raised by the employee assailing
2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
581
the order of punishment or it could have
held that none of the grounds are made out
and reject the appeal. There is no power
vested in the appellate authority to itself
visit the entire inquiry proceedings and
record
its
independent
reasons
for
justifying the punishment inflicted upon the
delinquent employee. Clearly the appellate
authority exercised power of disciplinary
authority and such an exercise is beyond its
jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The
role of the appellate authority is to look
into the validity of the punishment order
and the reason recorded by the disciplinary
authority. He himself cannot assume the
role
of
disciplinary
authority
and
supplement his reasons for upholding the
punishment order specifically where no
such reason exists in the order of
disciplinary authority. This is also because
it is the discretion vested in the disciplinary
authority to "decide" as to whether the
charges are proved or not, and also as to
what punishment is to be awarded to the
delinquent employee. In case the discretion
vested in the disciplinary authority has not
been exercised properly or contrary to the
settled provisions of law, the appellate
authority should set aside the order, but
cannot
himself
assume
the
role
of
disciplinary authority.

32. Therefore, in the present case, the
appellate
authority
has
exceeded
its
jurisdiction by trying to read the findings of
the inquiry officer as the reasons given by
the disciplinary authority which were not
existing in the order of disciplinary
authority and substituted its reasons in the
said order. In this regard this Court is of the
view that the appellate authority has
exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him.

33. Lastly, it is noticed that the
Tribunal was aware of the fact and it rightly
noticed that order of punishment is without
reasons. In para 13 they have accordingly
correctly appreciated the law in this regard,
but, surprisingly it has not taken it to its
logical conclusion. Once it had come to a
conclusion that order of punishment was
bereft of reasons, then there was nothing
further to be looked into and it was
incumbent upon them to have set aside the
punishment inflicted upon the workman,
rather, it allowed the stand of the employer
by proceeding to hold that the workman
had been given full opportunity during
disciplinary proceedings. This Court finds
the order of Tribunal as illegal and arbitrary
inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings
culminated in the order of punishment. If
any order of punishment is passed without
any reasons, its validity cannot be upheld
on the ground that the delinquent employee
has been given full opportunity of hearing.
By not giving reasons in the order of
punishment, is in violation of principles of
natural justice and it is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and in the present case, the order
of Tribunal is clearly arbitrary and illegal.

34.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent on the other hand has submitted
lastly that once it has been found that order
is in violation of principles of natural
justice, then the matter should be remitted
for fresh consideration from the stage of
infirmity. Considering the above argument
raised
by
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents it is noticed that proceedings
against the employee were pending since
2001 i.e. for last 23 years and during this
period the petitioner has also retired and
looking into the long lapse of time it would
not be just, fair and reasonable to remand
the matter back to the disciplinary authority
to decide the matter afresh, after such a
long lapse of time, specially considering
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
fact
that
the
petitioner
has
superannuated in the meantime, and also
looking into the gravity of punishment
where only punishment inflicted was only
withdrawal of allowance, which is not a
major punishment, accordingly, award
dated 21.01.2010, appellate order dated
20.03.2002 and punishment order dated
19.12.2001 are hereby set aside.

35. The writ petition is allowed with
all consequential benefits.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 582
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1004613 of 2003

Virendra Kumar Shukla & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
V.V.Tripathi, Alpana Yadav, Dr. Aniruddha
Kumar
Singh,
Illegible,
Pankaj
Kr.Srivastava, Raj Mani Dubey, Sukha Ram
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ananttika Singh, H.S. Tiwari, Pankaj
Khare, S.P.Shukla, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article
226
&
300A-U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950 and
Rules
1952-Rule
285B
-Auction
of
immovable
property-Petitioners
challenged the auction of 1.717 hectares
of mortgaged agricultural land conducted
by the State in 2003 for recovery of
agricultural loans-The land was auctioned
for Re.1 due to lack of bidders, and the
State subsequently mutated the property
in its name-the petitioners fully repaid the
loans under a one-time settlement in 2019
and received a "no dues" certificateHeld,
the
auction
process
was
arbitrary, illegal and violated statutory
and
constitutional
principles-Rule
285B
mandates
fair
valuation
and
adequate publicity for auctions, selling
the property for Re. 1 violated these
principles-The
State,
acting
as
auctioneer and purchaser, failed to
ensure transparency and fairness in
the auction process-The state was
directed to revert the land to the legal
heirs of the borrower and update the
revenue records accordingly.(Para 1 to
39)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Official Liquidator (2000)5 SCC 274

2. Divya Manufg. Co.(P) Ltd.& anr. Vs U.O.I. &
ors.. (2000) AIR SC 2346

3. Gajraj Jain Vs St.of Bih. & ors..