A quasi-judicial authority, such as a disciplinary body, must record cogent, clear reasons in its orders, especially when they adversely affect an employee's rights, to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with the principles of natural justice, even if the authority concurs with the inquiry report.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that both these writ petitions are amenable to be decided together, since a common issue arises for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are taken up together. However, for a facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP-7566-1999.

2) The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 17/20.05.1999 (Annexure P-8), vide which, he was dismissed from service.

ARGUMENTS

3) In an endeavour to question the validity of the aforesaid order, learned Senior counsel structured his submissions around three core issues.

4) Firstly, the dismissal order cannot withstand the test of legality, being non-speaking and cryptic. Elaborating the issue, he submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was furnished with the enquiry report, to which, he also filed detailed objections. However, authorities did not opt to address any of the said objections, and thus, passed the impugned order in most mechanical and perfunctory manner. Further, passing of the dismissal order, after conducting an enquiry, indeed, leads to a quasi-judicial function. Accordingly, any order, which is bereft of reasons, is liable to be out-rightly set aside. He laid much thrust to submit that once the authority is discharging the quasi-judicial functions, it is obliged to record reasons in support of its decision. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others , 2010 (9) SCC 496; Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others , 1973 (2) SCC 836; and S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India , 1990 (4) SCC 594, as well as by this Court in Som Nath Gandhi Vs. State of Punjab and another (CWP-19050-1996, decided on 19.12.1996); and Dr. H.S. Aneja Vs. State of Punjab (CWP-11130-1999, decided on 09.09.1999).

5) Secondly, the Punishing Authority had sought prior approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission for dismissal of the petitioner from service, which was granted. However, a copy of such approval/report was not supplied to the petitioner, depriving him from submitting objections/response thereto. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s right to defend has been acutely hampered. On this aspect, he referred to the decision in Union of India and others Vs. S.K.Kapoor , (2011) 4 SCC 589, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case, report of the Union Public Service Commission is relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority, it is of paramount importance to supply the same to the employee concerned, else it would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. He further relied upon verdicts of the Division Benches of this Court in Dr. Vijay Khariwal Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2013 (4) SCT 302, and State of Punjab and others Vs. G.S. Sidhu (LPA No. 383-2019, decided on 20.2.2019).

6) Adverting to the third issue, he took this Court through the decision dated 29.05.1996, rendered by a Division of this Court in CWP-3050-1996 (M/s Daljit Singh and Brother Vs. The State of Punjab and others), which was filed by none other than the contractor, who had executed the work involved in the present lis, for release of payment, which was alleged to be withheld on acco