# R.B. Saxena v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 242
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-01-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56885 of 2003
- **Bench:** S. K. Singh, Pankaj Naqvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-b-saxena-v-union-of-india-and-others-42110
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. K. SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56885 of 2003

R. B. Saxena

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel fo the Petitioner:
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Goel

Counsel for the Respondents;
Sri A.K. Gaur
Sri Govind Saran
C.S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-Judicial
Property-recording reasons-even Quasi
Judicial/Administrative Authorities are
bound to give reasons-in support of their
conclusions-neither
disciplinary
authority nor appellate authority nor the
Tribunal-Followed
this
principle-Writ
Court can not adjudicate the question of
fact-matter remitted back before Central
Administrative
Tribunal
for
fresh
decision.

Held: Para 19

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that
decision taken by the departmental
authority being non speaking even the
tribunal has not taken pains of noticing
the facts, report and the submission that
all
other
charged
employees
were
exonerated and although the petitioner
has not been found to be signatory of the
appointment letters and it is said that
only two fake appointment letters were
supplied by him, extreme penalty of
removal from service has been given.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1986 SC 1173; AIR 1966 SC 671; AIR
1976 SC 1785; (2005) 2 SC 235; (2008) 3 SCC
469

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. K. Singh, J. )

1. Heard Sri B. P. Singh, learned Sr.
Advocate assisted by his colleague Sri V. K.
Singh and Sri A. K. Gaur, learned Advocate
who appeared for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition
prayer has been made for quashing the
judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad dated 9.9.2003 passed
in Original Application No. 964 of 1997
(annexure no. 15 to the writ petition) and
the orders dated 9.5.1996, 30.7.1996 and
25.4.1997 (annexure no. 11, 12 and 13
respectively to the writ petition).

3. For disposal of the writ petition
facts in brief will suffice.

4. Petitioner was initially appointed in
the year 1965 as Electrical Khalasi i.e.
Group D post at Allahabad under Assistant
Shop Superintendent (TR-D). Thereafter he
was promoted as Judicial Clerk and in the
year 1992 when he was working as Senior
Clerk in the office of Divisional Electrical
Engineer, Aligarh he was served with a
major penalty charge sheet dated 1.10.1992.
Finally the disciplinary authority without
considering the reply and the details given
by the petitioner by order dated 9.5.1996
removed the petitioner from service, upon
which petitioner filed appeal and revision
but both were dismissed vide orders dated
30.7.1996 and 25.4.1997 and Original
Application filed before the Tribunal was
also dismissed on 9.8.2003 and thus all the
four orders are under challenge.
1 All] R.B. Saxena V. Union of India and others

243

5. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that petitioner was not
afforded reasonable opportunity in the
departmental proceedings to defend himself
and he was compelled to have defence
helper without even allowing time to
prepare the case and the witness called by
the petitioner was not examined. It is further
submitted that in all six persons were
proceeded
for
the
charge
of
preparation/issuance
of
the
fake
appointment letters but all others have been
exonerated and only petitioner has been
singled out and punished with extreme
penalty.

6. Submission is that so far the
petitioner is concerned the charge is that he
gave fake appointment letters to two
employees and it is not a case that he got the
forged appointment letter prepared and
signed rather the then A.P.O. Ram
Khelawan
and
other
employees
got
prepared those letters and this fact has been
accepted by the Enquiry Officer but the
disciplinary authority has only said that it
does not matter as to who was the signatory
of the appointment letter.

7. Besides the aforesaid aspects
submission
is
that
a
detailed
representation/objection was submitted by
the petitioner against enquiry report but
nothing has been considered and in a most
mechanical manner without applying the
mind to the facts the disciplinary authority
passed an order of removal from service.
Appellate authority and the revisional
authority both concurred without adverting
to the facts and details in the same fashion.

8. Submission is that the Tribunal
which was expected to judge the things in a
judicial manner in the light of the materials
on record and the grounds so taken by the
petitioner arguments so advanced but in a
very surprising manner the Tribunal in one
paragraph by a non speaking order has just
said that no infirmity has been found in the
decision and no interference is required.

9. Submission is that authorities were
required to consider the facts and details
and the arguments so advanced and were
required to answer the same, may be in brief
manner but non assigning of any reason
whatsoever either by the departmental
authority or by the Tribunal has vitiated the
entire process.

10. Sri Gaur, learned Advocate who
appeared for the respondents submits that
although from the orders of the disciplinary
authority as well as of the appellate or
revisional authority it is not clear that they
have assigned reasons to meet the factors so
pointed out by the petitioner and the
Tribunal has also not recorded the facts and
arguments in detail and dismissed the
Original Application in summary manner
but the facts remains that entire record will
be presumed to have been perused and
opinion has been formed in the light of the
available
material and, therefore, no
interference is required.

11. At this stage, we are to just notice
certain decisions of the Apex Court and of
this Court wherein it has been ruled that
assigning of the reasons while forming an
opinion and while deciding the matter is
quite necessary and that indicates the mind
of the authority and the court that how it has
proceeded to accept/reject the submissions.

12. Sri Gaur, learned Advocate fairly
submits that the aforesaid decision of the
Apex Court and of this Court are certainty
on this point.
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

13. To impress upon the need of
giving reasons while deciding a matter is
very simple. Unless narration of facts,
argument/objection to a decision and
discussion part, even in brief is there, here a
litigant is to judge and is to be satisfied that
he received meaningful consideration of his
case, the conclusion of which might not
favour him. It is commonly said that
dispensation of justice has to appear which
can only be confirmed by looking into your
wisdom and comparative thought to the
issue which can only be viewed only when
it is expressed. Expression can only be in
writing. No body is going to read and infact
may not be capable to reach by going into
your inner feel unless that is reduced in
writing.

14. The need of giving reasons to a
conclusion has been expressed time and
again by the Apex Court.

15. In an old decision given by the
Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra
Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1986
SC 1173 placing reliance on another
decision of the Apex Court in Madhya
Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of
India AIR 1966 SC 671, the following
observations were made :

"Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional.
authority shall give its own reasons
succinctly; but in a case of affirmance
where the original tribunal gives adequate
reasons, the Appellate Tribunal may dismiss
the appeal or the revision, as the case may
be, agreeing with those reasons."

9. These authorities proceed upon the
principle that in the absence of a
requirement in the statute or the rules, there
is no duty cast on an appellate authority to
give reasons where the order is one of
affirmance. Here, R. 22(2) of the Railway
Servants Rules in express terms requires the
Railway Board to record its findings on the
three aspects stated therein. Similar are the
requirements under R. 27(2) of the Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965. R. 22(2) provides that
in the case of an appeal against an order
imposing any of the penalties specified in R.
6 or enhancing any penalty imposed under
the said rule, the appellate authority shall
'consider' as to the matters indicated therein.
The word 'consider' has different shades of
meaning and must in R. 22(2), in the
context in which it appears, mean an
objective consideration by the Railway
Board after due application of mind which
implies the giving of reasons for its
decision."

16. In another decision given by the
Apex Court in the case of The Siemens
Engineering
and
Manufacturing
Consolidation Officer. Of India Ltd. Vs.
The Union of India and another reported
in AIR 1976 SC 1785, the following
observations were made :

"Every quasi-judicial order must be
supported by reasons. That has been laid
down by a long line of decisions of this
Court ending with N. M. Desai v. Testeels
Ltd., C. A. No. 245 of 1970 decided on 1712-1975 (SC). But, unfortunately, the
Assistant Collector did not choose to give
any reasons in support of the order made by
him confirming the demand for differential
duty. This was in plain disregard of the
requirement of law. The Collector in
revision did give some sort of reason but it
was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in
his order with the arguments advanced by
the appellants in their representation dated
8th December, 1961 which were repeated in
the subsequent representation dated 4th
1 All] R.B. Saxena V. Union of India and others

245
June, 1965. It is not suggested that the
Collector should have made an elaborate
order discussing the arguments of the
appellants in the manner of a court of law.
But the order of the Collector could have
been little more explicit and articulate so as
to lend assurance that the case of the
appellants had been properly considered by
him. If courts of law are to be replaced by
administrative authorities and tribunals, as
indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the
proliferation of Administrative law, they
may have to be so replaced, it is essential
that administrative authorities and tribunals
should accord fair and proper hearing to the
persons sought to be affected by their orders
and give sufficiently clear and explicit
reasons in support of the orders made by
them. Then alone administrative authorities
and
tribunals
exercising
quasi-judicial
function will be able to justify their
existence and carry credibility with the
people by inspiring confidence in the
adjudicatory process. The rule requiring
reasons to be given in support of an order is,
like the principle of audi alteram partem, a
basic principle of natural justice which must
inform every quasi-judicial process and this
rule must be observed in its proper spirit
and mere pretence of compliance with it
would not satisfy the requirement of law.
The Government of India also failed to give
any reasons in support of its order rejecting
the revision application. But we may
presume that in rejecting the revision
application, it adopted the same reason
which prevailed with the Collector. The
reason given by the Collector was, as
already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and
it would, therefore, have been better if the
Government of India had given proper and
adequate
reasons
dealing
with
the
arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellants while rejecting the revision
application."

17. We can refer another recent
decision of the Apex Court given in the case
of
MMRDA
Officers
Association
Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade Vs. Mumbai
Metropolitan
Regional
Development
Authority and another reported in (2005)
2 SCC 235 which is to the following effect :

"4. We find that the writ petition
involved
disputed
issues
regarding
eligibility. The manner in which the High
Court has disposed of the writ petition
shows that the basic requirement of
indicating reasons was not kept in view and
is a classic case of non-application of mind.
This Court in several cases has indicated the
necessity for recording reasons."Disclaimer:
The text is computer generated. The user
must verify the authenticity of the extracted
portion with the original.

"5. Even in respect of administrative
orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen
v.Amalgamated Engg. Union [ (1971) 1 All
ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2
WLR 742 (CA)] observed: (All ER p.
1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration." In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree [ 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] 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
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

review in adjudging the validity of the
decision. Right to reason is an indispensable
part of a sound judicial system. 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 (Chairman and Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.
Kakkar."

18. To sum up the aforesaid aspect
another recent decision of the Apex Court
given in the case of Divisional Forest
Officer, Kothagudem and others Vs.
Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 3
SCC 469 can be referred and the
observations as made in para 19 and 20 will
be useful to be quoted here :

"19.
Having
considered
the
submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and also having regard to
the detailed manner in which the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt
with the matter, including the explanation
given regarding the disbursement of the
money received by the respondent, we see
no reason to differ with the view taken by
the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed
by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional
Forest Officer dealt with the matter in
detail, but it was also the duty of the
appellate authority to give at least some
reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by
the respondent. A similar duty was cast on
the revisional authority being the highest
authority in the Department of Forests in the
State.

Unfortunately, even the revisional
authority has merely indicated that the
decision of the Divisional Forest Officer
had been examined by the Conservator of
Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of
misappropriation was clearly proved. He
too did not consider the defence case as
made out by the respondent herein and
simply
endorsed
the
punishment
of
dismissal though reducing it to removal
from service.

"20. It is no doubt also true that an
appellate or revisional authority is not
required to give detailed reasons for
agreeing and confirming an order passed by
the lower forum but, in our view, in the
interests of justice, the delinquent officer is
entitled to know at least the mind of the
appellate
or
revisional
authority
in
dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is
true that no detailed reasons are required to
be given, but some brief reasons should be
indicated even in an order affirming the
views of the lower forum."

19. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear
that decision taken by the departmental
authority being non speaking even the
tribunal has not taken pains of noticing the
facts, report and the submission that all
other charged employees were exonerated
and although the petitioner has not been
found to be signatory of the appointment
letters and it is said that only two fake
appointment letters were supplied by him,
extreme penalty of removal from service
has been given.

20. On these facts, we are of the
considered view that we are not to
undertake the exercise of examining the
records to form a final opinion either way
like the departmental authorities and at the
same like the Tribunal and thus the claim of
the petitioner in the light of the facts and
grounds has to be attended afresh by the
1 All] Sewa Ram Pathak Abhay and others V. The State of U.P. and others

247
Central Administrative Tribunal and a
decision in accordance with law will have to
be taken.

21. As the matter is quite old the
Central Administrative Tribunal is expected
to decide the matter with all expedition
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order from either of the sides.

22. For the reasons given above, this
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 9.9.2003
(annexure no. 15) is hereby quashed and the
matter is relegated for being heard and
decided as indicated above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 62458 of 2011

Sewa Ram Pathak Abhay and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Krishan Ji Khare
Sri Mritunjay Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.N. Maurya
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-benefit
of
pension-petitioners
working
as
Assistant Teacher-retired on 30.06.2009seeking
direction
to
accept
the
management contribution with interestclaiming benefits of period of working
prior to grant in aid for computation of
qualifying period of pension-in view of
G.O. Dated 26.07.2001-while cut of date
given in G.O. Already quashed in Smt.
Shanti Solanki case-followed in several
decisions-if
petitioner
deposit
entire
amount of contribution of management
with
interest
within
six
weeksrespondents
to
extend
for
pension
purpose.

Held: Para 8

In the facts and circumstances of the
case
and
considering
the
aforesaid
decisions as also the fact that petitioners
are ready to pay the entire amount of
Management's contribution along with
interest, this writ petition is allowed in
the same terms and conditions as
contained
in
judgment
dated
06.09.2006, Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra).
If the petitioners deposit Management's
contribution
together
with
interest
within a period of six weeks from today,
the respondents shall proceed to extend
benefit of Government Order dated
26.07.2001 to the petitioners as well.
The aforesaid exercise will be completed
within three months from the date of
such
deposit
and
production
of
a
certified copy of this order. No order as
to cost.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri J.N. Maurya for the respondents 2 to
5.

2. The only relief sought by the
petitioners is that the respondents should
get
amount
of
Management's
contribution deposited with interest from
the petitioners and compute the services
rendered by them prior to the institution
concerned brought in grant-in-aid for the