IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

216 CWP-9659-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision:28.11.2025 Parmjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sunil K. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Anand Rohilla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-15) vide which the application for stay of recovery and statutory appeal of petitioner was dismissed by passing a non-speaking order. Further praying for quashing of recovery notice dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-12) and the charge-sheet dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings thereto. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to restore the recovery made from the salary of petitioner vide recovery notice dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-12).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-15), vide which his application for stay of recovery as well as statutory appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that in fact a perusal of the order dated 07.08.2024 would show that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been decided in a mechanical manner by passing a non-speaking order. As such, the impugned orders passed are not sustainable in the eyes of law and has been passed without citing any reasons and gist.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 is not in a position to justify the impugned order.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file with their able assistance. A perusal of the record transpires that that the Appellate authority has merely mentioned in the order that after going through the complete file, he has came to the conclusion that the order of stopping of increment with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.9,89,310/- is appropriate and no further orders can be passed in this case and it was advised that petitioner in future do work with determination and honesty.

5. A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 while speaking through Justice A.K.Ganguly made the following observation:-

“51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds :

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the ju