Back
2004 Supreme(Pat) 568
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.S.Garg, J.
Sheo Nandan Prasad Singh
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6083 of 2004 ;
Decided On : MAY 20, 2004
An appellate order must be self-contained, show application of mind, and provide reasons for declining to interfere in the matter.
Headnote:
Appellate Order - Legal Order - The appellate order must be self-contained, show application of mind, and provide reasons for declining to interfere in the matter. If the order does not meet these criteria, it can be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was awarded a penalty under annexure-6, and his appeal against the order was dismissed by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate order was not a legal order as it lacked self-containment, application of mind, and reasons for declining to interfere in the matter. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter for fresh decision, directing that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.
Issues: Validity of the appellate order, requirement for self-containment and application of mind in appellate orders.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order must be self-contained, show application of mind, and provide reasons for declining to interfere in the matter. Failure to meet these criteria can result in the order being quashed and the matter remitted for fresh decision.
Final Decision: The appellate order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh decision. It was directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has been awarded penalty under annexure-6, being aggrieved by the said order he took up the matter in appeal before the Director (R) who also acted as the appellate authority. By the appellate order dated 26.2.2004 (annexure-8) the appeal has been dismissed observing that the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner in his appeal are not tenable and are without any material fact which may warrant review of the order passed by the preliminary authority.
3. In the opinion of this Court, the order contained in annexure-8 cannot be termed to be a legal order. An order of the appellate authority must be self-contained. From the order itself it must appear that what were the charges levelled, what were the findings of the sub-ordinate authority, on what grounds the appellant was challenging the findings and for what particular reasons the appellate authority was declining to interfere in the matter. As the order in question does not show application of mind and is cryptic in nature, it cannot be allowed to stand. The said order is hereby quashed.The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and observation made aforesaid.
4. It is further directed that during the pendency of the appeal no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. If the petitioner wants a personal hearing then the personal hearing should be afforded to him and if he wants to place some more grounds in support of his appeal then those should also be taken into consideration.
5. It goes without saying that the advance copy of such argument or the grounds shall be supplied to the Management enabling them to meet the grounds.
6. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed.
