IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissing a writ petition in a summary manner without assigning any reason is not permissible.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur.

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

Respondent was posted as Booking Clerk at Gorakhpur Station. He was found involved in serious acts of misconduct, not taking interest in the job, carelessness in performance and usually coming late to office and remaining absent and not complying with orders. In this regard several letters were written by the senior Foreman directing the respondent to improve his conduct and warning him that unless he improved himself, necessary orders shall be passed. He was asked to make certain clarifications by letter dated 24.4.1980 to which he did not submit a reply. He was suspended from service on 26.7.1980 and was asked to place his defence. Since his reply was found not satisfactory, a decision was taken to conduct an enquiry on 30.8.1980. A charge sheet was issued to him and he was asked to furnish reply in respect of the following charges:

1. for not maintaining vehicle wise register as per rules and not making up to date entries in the same.

2. For not taking interest in work, carelessness in performance and not producing the requisite clarifications when asked to do so by superiors.

3. For marking his presence on the attendance register on a day when he remained absent and

4. Willfully causing disappearance of departmental records.

A departmental enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry officer after concluding the same submitted the enquiry report. During enquiry the charges leveled against the respondent were found to be proved and as such he was removed from service by order dated 30.7.1988. Respondent filed an application in 2002 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur which was listed as Adjudication Case No.25 of 2002. In course of examination by the Labour Court on 28.1.2004, respondent admitted that certain entries in register entered by him could not be made. The Labour Court directed re-instatement with 50% backwages. The writ petition was filed which was dismissed summarily after issuance of notice to the respondent who filed his reply.

4. The basic stand of the appellant is that the order is non-reasoned and the High Court had not even considered the various stands highlighted by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the order of the High Court.

6. It appears that the High Court had initially issued notice and reply was filed by the respondent. After that the High Court has dismissed the writ petition in a summary manner. It cannot be said that the various aspects highlighted by the appellant were without any substance. What would have the effect of it was to be enquired in the writ petition which apparently has not been done. The order reads as follows:

“Impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently writ petition is dismissed.”

7. As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that practically no reason was indicated, the dismissal of the writ petition in such summary manner without indicating any reason is clearly indefensible.

8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable.

9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union1 (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtre