Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17589 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sanjay Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Gaurav Bishan,Ishir Sripat,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 21.9.2021 & 13.10.2021, passed by respondent nos. 4 & 3 respectively (enclosed as Annexure- 1 & 2 to the writ petition)
b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities, not to give effect the punishment orders in the forthcoming promotion of the petitioner to the next higher post and same may be considered notwithstanding the aforesaid punishment.
c. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities, not to withhold the increments or higher grade on account of the aforesaid minor punishment order, censure / adverse entry and same be considered / provided notwithstanding the aforesaid punishment."
Counsel for the petitioner states that while awarding censure entry to the petitioner, no reason been assigned by the respondents to discard the petitioner's explanation. He further brought the attention of the Court to the orders of this Court dated 23.9.2021 in Writ A No. 12622 of 2021, 25.3.2021 in Writ A No.5021 of 2021, 14.7.2021 in Writ A No.5230 of 2021 and 24.8.2021 in Writ A No. 10526 of 2021, to contend that similar issues have been decided by this Court, by relegating the matter to the authority concerned to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh.
Learned standing counsel states that the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing except the petitioner has not availed the remedy of revision.
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 aforementioned facts, the Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision rather to direct the authority concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21.9.2021 and 13.10.2021, passed by respondent nos. 4 & 3 are set aside. However, it is open to the respondents to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner afresh.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 C.Prakash