# Virendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1630
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 590 of 2010
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45550
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Dismissal - U.P. Rajya
Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees
Services Rules, 1976: Rule 81; U.P. Cooperative Societies Employee's Service
Regulation, 1975:
Regulation
102 -
Petitioner assails the impugned order of
dismissal, which is based on the enquiry report
dated 18.03.2007. Court allowed the present
petition on the following principles.

B. Following principles of natural justice
and the manner in which they have to be
followed is important to hold 'Regular
Enquiry'. (Para 18, 19) - On the ground of
non- supply of documents demanded by
petitioner and flaw in conducting the enquiry
proceedings, the enquiry report is found to be
vitiated
on
account
of
non-following
of
principles of natural justice as also the
procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1976.
The enquiry report is the basis of impugned
order and when a foundation is removed the
superstructure falls. (Para 21, 22)

 C. "Conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
mental exercise of authorities in arriving
at a particular conclusion. Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice.
(Para 25, 26) - The disciplinary authority has
not applied its mind while the passing the
impugned order and the same is a nonspeaking order. (Para 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
more circumspect in interfering and
deciding on the correctness of the key
answers, the situation today is that there is
a third evaluation of the answer sheets and
a third set of results is now ready for
declaration. Given this scenario, the
options before us are to nullify the entire
re-evaluation process and depend on the
result declared on 14th September, 2010 or
to go by the third set of results. Cancelling
the
examination
is
not
an
option.
Whichever option is chosen, there will be
some candidates who are likely to suffer
and lose their jobs while some might be
entitled to consideration for employment."

19. The law on the subject is thus clear
that in absence of any provision, the students
have no right to re-evaluate the answer-sheet.
The Court in absence of any provision can not
direct for re-evaluation nor the court can act as
an expert and evaluate the answers and direct
to award numbers as per its opinion.

20. The grounds, which have been taken
by the writ petitioner in the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not
sufficient for issuing directions to the appellant
to reconsider the case of the petitionerrespondent no.1 and grant appropriate marks,
which has been done by the writ court, as an
expert in the present case after going through
the comparative chart of the answers given by
the writ petitioner/ respondent no.1 as well as
the answers suggested by the Institute. There is
no provisions for re-evaluation in the
regulation specially Regulation 39(7) of the
Chartered Accountant Regulation,1988, as the
said provision only permits the Institute to
correct the mistake and award appropriate
marks .

21. So far as the judgments cited by Sri
Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 are concerned, we have
carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments
and to our view the same are not applicable in
the present case. In the judgments cited by
learned counsel for respondent no.1, the
Hon'ble the Apex Court has not propounded
the law that in absence of provision of reevaluation the High Court can direct for reevaluation or can act as expert in exercise of its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and compare the model answers with the
answers given by the candidates, who
appeared in the examination, as such the writ
petitioner-respondent no.1 cannot derive any
benefit from the same.

22. For the foregoing reasons, the
impugned
judgment
and
order
dated
28.04.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition no.5887 (MS) of 2013 (Ashutosh
Nigam Vs. The Union of India, Ministry of
Human Resources through Secretary and
another) is not in accordance with law.

23. In the result, the Special Appeal is
allowed and the order dated 28.04.2014 passed
by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
no.5887 (MS) of 2013 is set aside.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1630

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Service Single No. 590 of 2010

Virendra Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
2 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1631
Y.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., B.L. Verma, Balram Yadav, N.N.
Jaiswal

A. Service Law - Dismissal - U.P. Rajya
Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees
Services Rules, 1976: Rule 81; U.P. Cooperative Societies Employee's Service
Regulation, 1975:
Regulation
102 -
Petitioner assails the impugned order of
dismissal, which is based on the enquiry report
dated 18.03.2007. Court allowed the present
petition on the following principles.

B. Following principles of natural justice
and the manner in which they have to be
followed is important to hold 'Regular
Enquiry'. (Para 18, 19) - On the ground of
non- supply of documents demanded by
petitioner and flaw in conducting the enquiry
proceedings, the enquiry report is found to be
vitiated
on
account
of
non-following
of
principles of natural justice as also the
procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1976.
The enquiry report is the basis of impugned
order and when a foundation is removed the
superstructure falls. (Para 21, 22)

 C. "Conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
mental exercise of authorities in arriving
at a particular conclusion. Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice.
(Para 25, 26) - The disciplinary authority has
not applied its mind while the passing the
impugned order and the same is a nonspeaking order. (Para 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. State of U.P. Vs. Deepak Kumar, Writ
Petition No 34093 (S/B) of 2018, judgment
dated 28.11.2018 (Para 20)

2. Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, 1971
(1) AllER 1148 (Para 26)

3. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs.
Crabtress, 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) (Para 26)

4. Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor, (1973)
2 SCC 836 (Para 27)

5. Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
another, AIR 1981 SC 1915 (Para 28)

6. S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990
SC 1984 (Para 29)

7. Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2003) 11 SCC 519 (Para 30)

8. Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. & others, (2006) 11 SCC 181
(Para 31)

9. Kranti Associates Private Limited and
another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others,
(2010) 9 SCC 496 (Para 32)

10. Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. and another, JT 2010
(10) SC 26 (Para 33)

Present petition challenges order dated
05.09.2009,
passed
by
Managing
Director, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank
Limited.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri Y.K. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh
Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1 and Sri Balram Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to
4.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, a challenge has been made to the
order dated 05.09.2009, whereby the
petitioner (now deceased) was dismissed
from
the
services,
passed
by
the
respondent No. 2/Managing Director, U.P.
Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited.
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The legal heirs of the petitioner,
who expired on 27.08.2016, have been
substituted in compliance of the order of
this Court dated 05.01.2017.

4. Facts, in brief, of the present case
are that the petitioner was appointed on
Class IV post of Sahyogi in the Head
Office of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank
Ltd. with the approval of the Institutional
Service Board, Lucknow and thereafter, he
joined
the
services
on
31.07.1984.
Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted in
the year 1991 on the post of Assistant
Field Officer and he was posted at Salon
Branch of the Bank, District-Raebareli.
Thereafter, the petitioner was reverted
from the post of Assistant Filed Officer to
the post of Sahyogi and the said reversion
order was challenged by him by means of
the Writ Petition No. 210 (S/S) of 1993.

5. It is stated that in the aforesaid
writ petition, the interim order was passed
on 22.01.1993 and subsequently, the writ
petition was allowed by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 20.09.2012 and
despite the judgment and order passed by
this Court in favour of the petitioner, he
was suspended on 30.08.2005 and chargesheet dated 08.02.2006 was issued, which
was
received
by
the
petitioner
on
24.04.2006
and
vide
order
dated
28.04.2006, the petitioner demanded the
copy of the documents mentioned in the
charge-sheet but the same were not
provided to the petitioner. No reply to the
charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the enquiry officer
conducted
the
ex-parte
enquiry
and
submitted his report dated 18.03.2007,
which was served to the petitioner vide
show cause notice dated 02.05.2008 and
thereafter,
the
impugned
order
of
punishment dated 05.09.2009 was passed,
whereby the petitioner was dismissed from
the services of the Bank.

7.
 Assailing
the
order
dated
05.09.2009, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the enquiry
proceedings carried out by the enquiry
officer are in utter violation of Rule 81 of
U. P. Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank
Employees Services Rules, 1976 (in short
"Rules of 1976") framed under Regulation
102 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies
Employee's Service Regulation, 1975,
which reads as under:-

"Disciplinary proceedings

(1) The disciplinary proceedings
against an employee shall be conducted by
the Inquiring Officer appointed by the
appointing authority or by an officer of the
Bank
authorised
by
the
appointing
authority. Provided that the officer at
whose instance disciplinary action was
started shall not be appointed as an
Inquiry officer not shall the Inquiry Officer
be the appellate authority.

(a) The Inquiry Officer during
inquiry shall observe the principles of
natural justice for which it shall be
necessary that the employee shall be
served with a charge sheet containing
specific charges, the evidence in support of
each charge and he shall be required to
submit explanation in respect of the charge
within a reasonable time which shall be
not less than 15 days.

(b) Such employee shall also be
given an opportunity to produce at his own
cost or to cross examine witnesses in his
defence and shall also be given an
opportunity of being heard in person, if he
so desires:

(c) If no explanation in respect of
charge sheet is received or the explanation
2 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1633
submitted is unsatisfactory the competent
authority may award him appropriate
punishment considered necessary.

(2) (a) Where the employee is
dismissed or removed from service on the
ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge, or

(b) Where the employee has
absconded and his whereabouts are not
known to the Bank for more than 3 months,
or

(c) Where the employee refuses
or fails without sufficient cause to appear
before
the
Inquiring
Officer
when
specifically called upon in writing to
appear, or

(d) Where it is otherwise (for
reasons to be recorded) not possible to
communicate with him the competent
authority
may
award
appropriate
punishment without taking or continuing
disciplinary proceedings.

(3)
Disciplinary
proceedings
shall be taken by the Bank against the
employee on a report made to this effect by
the inspecting authority or an officer of the
Bank under whose control the employee is
working.

(4) The Inquiring Officer shall
be appointed by the appointing authority
or by an officer of the society authorised
for the purpose by the appointing
authority.

Provided that the officer at
whose instance disciplinary action was
started shall not be appointed as an
enquiring officer nor shall the said
inquiring
officer
be
the
appellate
authority.

(5) Where an erring employee is
on deputation with
the
Bank, The
Committee of Management, the Chairman
or the Managing Director/Secretary, as the
case may be, draw up a duplicate charge
sheet against such employee and the same
shall be communicated to the parent
employer who shall, if prima facie case
has been made out by the reporting
authority, withdraw him from the Bank and
take disciplinary action against him."

8. It is further submitted that on
account of non following the procedure
prescribed under the Regulation of 1976,
the
enquiry
report
is
vitiated
and
accordingly, the order of dismissal dated
05.09.2009 based on the same is liable to
be interfered with.

9. He further stated that the
impugned order dated 05.09.2009 is non
speaking
order
and
being
so
is
unsustainable in the eye of law.

10. The prayer is to interfere in the
order of dismissal dated 05.09.2009 and
allow the writ petition.

11. Per contra, Sri Balram Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to
4 on the basis of the averments made in
the counter affidavit as well as the
documents annexed therewith submitted
that the reasonable opportunity was
provided to the petitioner during the
enquiry proceedings but the petitioner
failed to avail the opportunity provided to
him and accordingly, the enquiry officer
proceeded with the enquiry and submitted
his report before the disciplinary authority.
The disciplinary authority also provided
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner
but the petitioner at that stage too failed to
avail the opportunity provided to him. The
disciplinary authority-respondent No. 2
after considering the enquiry report passed
the order impugned dated 05.09.2009. The
order impugned dated 05.09.2009 is
approved
by
the
respondent
No.
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4/Secretary, Institutional Service Board,
Lucknow.

12. It is further stated that in the facts
of the case, the impugned order dated
05.09.2009 is not liable to be interfered
with and the writ petition for it is liable to
be dismissed.

13. Heard the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

14. It appears from the record
particularly the report of the enquiry
officer dated 18.03.2007 and the impugned
order
dated
05.09.2009
that
some
opportunity was provided to the petitioner
by the enquiry officer as well as by the
disciplinary authority while holding the
enquiry and prior to passing of the order
dated 05.09.2009.

15. It also appears from the record
that the specific averments made in para
18 of the writ petition to the effect that the
documents demanded by the petitioner
were not supplied to him, have not been
refuted in para 7 of counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
which contains reply to para 18 of the writ
petition.

16. It is also evident from the eqnuiry
report that the enquiry officer without
conducting
the
enquiry
as
per
the
procedure prescribed under the Rules of
1976, which casts a duty on the enquiry
officer to hold regular enquiry, submitted
his report.

17. It further appears from the
enquiry report as well as the contents of
counter affidavit that the enquiry officer
without fixing date, time and place for oral
evidence,
under
intimation
to
the
petitioner, to prove the charges and
documents mentioned in the charge-sheet
prepared the enquiry report, based on the
documents, and submitted the same before
the disciplinary authority. It also appears
therefrom that certain charges have been
proved only on account of non submission
of reply to the charge-sheet.

18. Rule 81 of the Rules of 1976
speaks that regular enquiry has to be
conducted and principles of natural justice
have to be followed in the disciplinary
proceedings by the enquiry officer, which
includes an opportunity to the employee to
examine the witnesses of department,
those are required to prove the charges and
documents relied upon in the charge sheet,
as also an opportunity to produce his
witnesses
in
his
defence
and
an
opportunity of being heard in person.

19. In what manner the principles of
natural justice have to be followed in the
departmental/disciplinary proceedings has
already explained by the Apex Court as
well as by this Court.

20. The Division Bench of this
Court, after considering the catena of
judgments on the issue of holding the
disciplinary enquiry i.e. a regular enquiry,
in the judgment dated 28.11.2018 passed
in Writ Petition No.34093 (S/B) of 2018
(State of U.P. v. Deepak Kumar) has
observed asunder:-

"It is settled by the catena of
judgments that it is the dutyof Enquiry
Officer
to
hold
''Regular
Enquiry'.
Regularenquiry means that after reply to
the charge-sheet theEnquiry Officer must
record oral evidence with anopportunity to
the
delinquent
employee
to
cross-
2 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1635
examinethe
witnesses
and
thereafter
opportunity
should
be
given
tothe
delinquent
employee
to
adduce
his
evidence in defence.The opportunity of
personal
hearing
should
also
begiven/awarded
to
the
delinquent
employee. Even if thecharged employee
does
not
participate/co-operate
in
theenquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the
Enquiry Officer toproceed ex-parte by
recording
oral
evidence.
For
regularenquiry, it is incumbent upon the
Enquiry Officer to fixdate, time and place
for examination and cross-11S.A. No. 175
of 2005examination of witnesses for the
purposes
of
proving
ofcharges
and
documents, relied upon and opportunity
todelinquent employee should also be
given to produce hiswitness by fixing date,
time and place. After completion ofenquiry
the Enquiry Officer is required to submit
its report,stating therein all the relevant
facts, evidence andstatement of findings on
each charge and reasons thereof,and
thereafter,
prior
to
imposing
any
punishment, the copyof the report should
be provided to charged officer for
thepurposes of submission of his reply on
the same. Thepunishment order should be
reasoned and speaking andmust be passed
after considering entire material on
record.(vide: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. 1990 (8) LCD 486;Avatar Singh Vs.
State of U.P. 1998 (16) LCD 199;
TownArea
Committee,
Jalalabad
Vs.
Jagdish Prasad 1979 Vol. ISCC 60;
Managing
Director,
U.P.
Welfare
HousingCorporation Vs. Vijay Narain
Bajpai 1980 Vol. 3 SCC459; State of U.P.
Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC
651;Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India
and others AIR1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar
Vs. Presiding Officer and othersAIR 1985
SC 1121; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories 2003 (21) LCD
610; RoopSingh Negi Vs. Punjab National
Bank and others (2009) 2SCC 570; M.M.
Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others
2015(33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of
U.P. and others 2013(31) LCD 1319;
Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others2014 (4) ALJ 440."

21. In view of the law settled by this
Court in regard to holding of regular
enquiry
and
observations,
made
hereinabove, with regard to non supply of
documents to the petitioner and flow in
conducting the enquiry proceedings, this
Court finds that the enquiry report is
vitiated on account of non following of
principles of natural justice as also the
procedure prescribed under the Rules of
1976.

22. The basis of the impugned order
dated 05.09.2009 is the enquiry report
dated 18.03.2007, which this Court has
already held that the same is in violation
of principles of natural justice and Rules
of 1976 and keeping in view of the same
as
well
as
the
maxim
"Sublato
Fundamento Cadit Opus" (a foundation
being removed, the superstructure falls)
the impugned order is liable to be
interfered/set aside by this Court.

23. In regard to submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that
the
impugned
order
dated
05.0.9.2009 is a non speaking order, this
Court
considered
the
order
dated
05.09.2009, which on reproduction reads
as under:-

"vkns'k

;r% Jh ohjsUnz dqekj feJk lg;ksxh
1⁄4fuy01⁄2 }kjk m0iz0lg0xzke fodkl cSad fy0
'kk[kk dVjk tuin 'kkgtgkaiqj ds dk;Zdky es
dh x;h vfu;ferrkvks ds ifjizs{; es iz0dk0
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vkns'kkad 128304@LFkk0@05&06] fn0 30-08-05
}kjk fuyfEcr dj vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh izkjEHk
dh x;h rFkk ofj0 izca/kd cnk;wW dks tkap
vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA

;r% tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fof/kor
vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lEiUu dh x;hA bl
laca/k es Jh feJk dks tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk
vuqeksfnr vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k ijarq Jh
feJk }kjk vkjksi i= dk mRrj iszf"kr ugh fd;k
x;kA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk bl laca/k es dbZ
Lej.k i= Hkh fn, x, rRi'pkr tkap vf/kdkjh
}kjk izfrokn ds vHkko es miyC/k lk{;ksa ,oa
vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij tkap vk[;k
izLrqr dh x;hA

;r% tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk izsf"kr
tkap vk[;k ,oa miyC/k lk{;ksa dk ijh{k.k
l{ke
izkf/kdkjh
}kjk
fd;k
x;k]
ijh{k.kksijkUr cSad bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqpk fd
fu'p; gh Jh ohjsUnz dqekj feJk] lg;ksxh]
foyEc ls 'kk[kk ij mifLFkr gksus] dzkl ij
gLrk{kj djus] fcuk vuqefr ds 'kk[kk can
gksus ls iwoZ pys tkus] 'kk0iz0 ds dkye es
gLrk{kj ds Åij dzkl yxkus] mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa
ls vHknzrk djus] xkyh xykSt djus] cSad
Nfo /kwfey djus rFkk vius in ds dRrZO;ksa
,oa nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu es pwd djus ds nks"kh
gSA

lacaf/kr leLr vfHkys[kksa ij l{ke
izkf/kdkjh }kjk lE;d :i ls fopkj fd;k
x;k] fopkjksijkar ekeys es vkjksiksa dh
xEHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, iz0dk0 ds
i=kad 116636@dk0@08&09 fn0 02-05-08
}kjk v/kksfyf[kr n.M izLrkfor djrs gq;s
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fuxZr dh x;hA

**Jh ohjsUnz dqekj feJk lg;ksxh
1⁄4fuy01⁄2 dks cSad lsok ls lsokP;qr dj fn;k
tk;s**

**fuyEcu dky es thou fuokZg
HkRrs ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ osru HkRrs u
fn, tk,A**

;r% Jh ohjsUnz dqekj feJk
lg;ksxh 1⁄4fuy01⁄2 }kjk nh x;h dkj.k crkvks
uksfVl dk mRrj le;kUrxZr izLrqr u fd,
tkus ds QyLo:i mUgsa iz0dk0 ds i= fn0
12-06-08] 15-09-2008 fn0 12-10-08] 17-1208 vuqLekjd i= iszf"kr fd;k x;k ijarq Jh
feJk }kjk mDr nh x;h uksfVl dk izfrokn
izsf"kr ugh fd;k x;kA ekuoh; n`f"Vdks.k dks
n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, Jh feJk fnukad 28-01-09]
17-02-09 ,oa 05-3-09 dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ
dk volj Hkh fn;k x;k] ijarq Jh feJk mDr
frfFk;ksa es O;fDrxr lquokbZ gsrq mifLFkr
ugh gq,A vr,o iz'kkldh; fu.kZ; fn0 2210-07 }kjk iznRr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k lk{;ksa ,oa
vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij dkj.k crkvks uksfVl
es izLrkfor n.M dks ;Fkkor cuk, j[kus dk
fu.kZ;
fy;k
x;kA
cSad
ds
i=kad
107575@dk0@08&09 fn0 09-04-09 }kjk
lfpo]
m0iz0lg0laLFkkxr
lsoke.My]
y[kuÅ dks Jh ohjsUnz dqekj feJk] lg;ksxh
dks cSad lsok ls lsokP;qr fd, tkus gsrq
vuqefr
ekaxh
x;hA
m0iz0lg0laLFkkxr
lsoke.My
y[kuÅ
ds
i=kad
841@vu0dk0@09 fn0 31-08-09 ds }kjk Jh
ohjsUnz dqekj feJk] lg;ksxh dks cSad ls
lsokP;qr fd, tkus gsrq vuqefr iznku dj nh
x;hA mDr vuqefr ds dze es Jh ohjsUnz
dqekj feJk] lg;ksxh dh vuq'kklfud
dk;Zokgh v/kksfyf[kr n.M ds lkFk lekIr
dh tkrh gSA

**Jh ohjsUnz dqekj feJk] lg;ksxh
1⁄4fuy01⁄2 dks cSad lsok ls lsokP;qr fd;k tkrk
gSA**

fuyEcu dky es thou fuokZg
HkRrs ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ osru HkRrs ns;
ugh gksaxsA**

gLrk+{kj & viBuh;

1⁄4uoy fd'kksj1⁄2

izcU/k funs'kd"

24. It reflects from the order dated
05.09.2009 that the disciplinary authority
has not applied its mind while passing it
and the same is a non speaking order.

25. The recording of reasons are
necessary.
It
is
well
known
that
"conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
2 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1637
mental exercise of authorities in arriving at
a particular conclusion.

26. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg.
Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it
was held that the giving of reasons is one
of
the
fundamentals
of
good
administration. In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in
1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed
that "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".

27. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal
Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, as under:

"Reasons are the links between the
materials on which certain conclusions are
based and the actual conclusions. They
disclose how the mind is applied to the
subject matter for a decision whether it is
purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They
should reveal a rational nexus between the
facts
considered
and
the
conclusions
reached."

28. The Apex Court in the case of
Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said:

"Reasons are the links between
the
materials
on
which
certain
conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions. They disclose how the
mind is applied to the subject matter for
a
decision
whether
it
is
purely
administrative or quasi-judicial. They
should reveal a rational nexus between
the facts considered and the conclusions
reached. Only in this way can opinions
or decisions recorded be shown to be
manifestly just and reasonable"

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v.
Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, has
explained that reasons are necessary
links between the facts and the findings
recorded in the administrative orders,
which visit a party with evil civil
consequences. In absence of reasons
such an order cannot be permitted to
stand."

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v.
State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11
SCC 519, has held that reasons are the
heartbeat of every conclusion and
without the same, it becomes lifeless.

31. In Mc Dermott International
Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2006) 11 SCC 181 Apex
Court
referring
to
Bachawat's
Law
of
Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn.,
pp. 855-56 in para 56 said:

"Reasons are the links between
the
materials
on
which
certain
conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions..."

32. The Apex Court in Kranti
Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs.
Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9
SCC 496 referring to the judgment in
Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23
said:

"Such reasons must disclose
how mind was applied to the subjectmatter for a decision regardless of the
fact whether such a decision is purely
administrative or quasi-judicial. This
Court held that the reasons in such
context would mean the link between
materials which are considered and the
conclusions which are reached. Reasons
1638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
must reveal a rational nexus between
the two."

33. The Apex Court also in Competition
Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68
referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial
Singh Fijji (supra) said:

"Reasons are the links between the
materials on which certain conclusions are based
and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted
in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the
concept of reasoned judgment has become an
indispensable part of basic rule of law and in
fact, is a mandatory requirement of the
procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to
clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is
foundation of a just and fair decision."

34. In view of the above, the punishment
order dated 05.09.2009 being based on the
enquiry report dated 18.03.2007, which is vitiated
under the law, and non speaking is liable to be
interfered with.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 05.09.2009 is hereby
quashed.

36. In view of the facts of the case to the
effect that the petitioner has expired and the
matter can not be remanded back to the
disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry a
fresh as well as keeping in view the principle
of no work no pay, I am of the view that the
petitioner (now deceased) would not be
entitled to back wages for the intervening
period.

37. However, the family members of the
petitioner (now deceased) would be entitled for
the consequential benefits, which are available
to them, under the relevant Rules of Bank.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1638

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 607 of 2016

U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Khare

A. Service - Compassionate Appointment -
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974: Rule 2(c) - The Court in the present
case followed the law upheld by the Apex Court that
'exclusion of married daughter' from the ambit of the
expression of 'family' in Rule 2 (c), was illegal and
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15
of the Constitution and therefore the word
'unmarried' has been rightly struck down.

Appeal dismissed.

Precedent followed:

1. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and
another, Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015 (Para 2, 8)

2. Manjula Vs. State of Karnataka, 2005 (104)
FLR 271 (Para 3)

3. Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 5592 of
2009, decided on 13.08.2014 (Para 3)

4. S. Kavita Vs. The District Collector, Writ
Petition No. 16153 of 2015, decided on
09.06.2015 (Para 3)