U.P.S.R.T.C vs Jagdish Prasad Gupta

U.P.S.R.T.C. ....Appellant

Versus

Jagdish Prasad Gupta ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur.

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

Respondent was posted as Booking Clerk at Gorakhpur Station. He

was found involved in serious acts of misconduct, not taking interest in the

job, carelessness in performance and usually coming late to office and

remaining absent and not complying with orders. In this regard several

letters were written by the senior Foreman directing the respondent to

improve his conduct and warning him that unless he improved himself,

necessary orders shall be passed. He was asked to make certain

clarifications by letter dated 24.4.1980 to which he did not submit a reply.

He was suspended from service on 26.7.1980 and was asked to place his

defence. Since his reply was found not satisfactory, a decision was taken to

conduct an enquiry on 30.8.1980. A charge sheet was issued to him and he

was asked to furnish reply in respect of the following charges:

1. for not maintaining vehicle wise register as per rules and

not making up to date entries in the same.

2

2. For not taking interest in work, carelessness in

performance and not producing the requisite

clarifications when asked to do so by superiors.\

3. For marking his presence on the attendance register on a

day when he remained absent and

4. Willfully causing disappearance of departmental records.

A departmental enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry officer after

concluding the same submitted the enquiry report. During enquiry the

charges leveled against the respondent were found to be proved and as such

he was removed from service by order dated 30.7.1988. Respondent filed

an application in 2002 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Gorakhpur which was listed as Adjudication Case No.25 of 2002. In course

of examination by the Labour Court on 28.1.2004, respondent admitted that

certain entries in register entered by him could not be made. The Labour

Court directed re-instatement with 50% backwages. The writ petition was

filed which was dismissed summarily after issuance of notice to the

respondent who filed his reply.

3

4. The basic stand of the appellant is that the order is non-reasoned and

the High Court had not even considered the various stands highlighted by

the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the

order of the High Court.

6. It appears that the High Court had initially issued notice and reply

was filed by the respondent. After that the High Court has dismissed the

writ petition in a summary manner. It cannot be said that the various

aspects highlighted by the appellant were without any substance. What

would have the effect of it was to be enquired in the writ petition which

apparently has not been done. The order reads as follows:

"Impugned order does not suffer from any

infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

Consequently writ petition is dismissed."

4

7. As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that practically no

reason was indicated, the dismissal of the writ petition in such summary

manner without indicating any reason is clearly indefensible.

8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of

justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,

in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its

order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons

has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.

9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen

v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed

"The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration".

In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was

observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are

live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in

question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute

subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the

decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence,

render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate

function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of

5 the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial

system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the

matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know

why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of

natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a

speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous

with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

10. This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004 (5) SCC

568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past

two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High

Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a

judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to

disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always

insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-

delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due

application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential

requisite of principles of natural justice. Any judicial power has to be

judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the

court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license

to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by

6 the well-known saying: "varying according to the Chancellor's foot".

Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of

any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge

further before higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary

disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a proper and

judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim before the courts. The

giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and

judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication

to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the

fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.

11. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this Court under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution')

and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without

assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ

petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not

the final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge

before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any

further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to

appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of

the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party

7 as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in

exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The

powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and

extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no

miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ

petition.

12. The above position is highlighted in Dr. Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State

of U.P. & Ors. [2008(3) SCC 172].

13. In the circumstances the impugned order of the High Court is clearly

unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to

hear the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52959 of 2005 to be disposed of by a

reasoned order. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

......................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi,

8 March 25, 2009

9