Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13028 of 2021

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Gautam

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned Standing

Counsel for the State-respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed

challenging the order dated 25.6.2021, whereby,

the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner,

has been dismissed.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that perusal

of the appellate order shows that none of the

grounds, as agitated in the memo of appeal, have

been considered while deciding the appeal.

I have perused the order impugned herein which

does not record any reasoning for dismissal of the

appeal.

The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon the judgement of this Court passed in Writ-A

No. 23290 of 2017 (Surendra Singh vs. State Of

U.P. And Another) decided on 24.5.2017 to the

following effect:

"By the impugned order, the petitioner has been found

guilty and he has been awarded a censure entry in terms

of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate

Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the

impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and it does not

disclose any reason, hence, the order is liable to be set

aside. He further submits that in response to the show

cause notice, the petitioner has submitted detailed

representation on 28.04.2016. The authority concerned

without adverting to his reply has rejected it by single

order that his reply was found "Asantoshjanak"

(Unsatisfactory). He submits that no reason has been

assigned in the matter, hence, the order is arbitrary.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is well settled law that an administrative/quasi judicial

order must contain reason in support of the conclusion and

in absence of the reason, the order become arbitrary.

The Supreme Court in long line of decisions has settled the

view that recording the reasons is an essential feature in

administrative decision. Recording the reasons also checks

the State functionaries to act fairly and restrain them from

arbitrary exercise of their administrative or quasi judicial

power. The reasons in support of decision must be cogent

and clear, which can demonstrate that authority concerned

has applied his mind. Reference may be made to the

judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant

Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works

Contract and Leasing Vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4

SCC 785; Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood

Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496; Union of India Vs. Mohan

Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87; S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of

India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar,

(2003) 11 SCC 519; Assistant Commissioner, Commercial

Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs.

Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785.

In view of the said settled law, I find that the impugned

order which is cryptic and skeletal, needs to be set aside.

Accordingly, it is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to pass

fresh order in accordance with law, expeditiously.

In view of the fact that from order itself, it is evident that

no reason has been mention, no useful purpose would be

served to grant time to learned Standing Counsel to file

counter affidavit.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is

disposed of."

Following the said judgement, as extracted above

and well settled law that the appellate authority

should exercise its discretion and pass a reasoned

order otherwise the whole purpose of an appellate

remedy is rendered illusory, finding that the order

impugned

does not record any reasoning

whatsoever and there is no consideration of the

case of