Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Darshan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16299 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 51020-21 of 2022
Decided On : 25-11-2022
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that impugned decisions lacking reasoning cannot be sustained and warrant remittance to the original authority for proper evaluation (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of an Original Application regarding the re-fixation of pay and recovery orders connected to his employment as an Assistant Director. The Tribunal dismissed the claims without sufficient reasoning.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the Tribunal's decision lacked necessary reasoning and could not stand, necessitating a remand for further consideration.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Tribunal provided adequate reasoning for its dismissal of the petitioner's claims related to pay re-fixation and recovery orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a tribunal's order must contain adequate reasoning; failure to do so results in the order being unsustainable and justifying remittance for fresh hearing.
Result: Impugned order set aside and Original Application restored for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks pay re-fixation and appeals dismissal. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. tribunal rejected petition citing insufficient reasoning. (Para 5) |
| 3. impugned order lacks reasoning and cannot be sustained. (Para 6) |
| 4. order set aside; case restored for fresh hearing. (Para 7) |
| 5. parties to appear for directions on specified date. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 30.11.2021, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal).
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. Petitioner had filed the subject petition seeking re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner and setting aside of communication whereby his pay had been fixed.
5. We notice that the Tribunal apart from noticing the contentions of the petitioner as well as the respondents in the last paragraph has rejected the petition holding as under:
"10. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties as well as perusing the documents available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the re-fixation of the pay of the applicant in the post of Assistant Director (OL). So far as. the recovery from the applicant is concerned, it shall not be effected as it is not a lapse on the part of the applicant.
The OA is disposed of as above.
There shall be no order as to costs."
6. Apart from what is noticed in paragraph 10, there is no consideration of the pleas of the parties emanating from the order or any reasoning. We find that the impugned order is bereft of any reasoning. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained and calls for a remit.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 is set aside. The Original Application is restored to the file of the Tribunal. Tribunal is directed to dispose of the Original Application by passing a speaking order after giving a fresh hearing to the parties.
8. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal for directions on 21.12.2022.
