G jab th Gandhi Vs. State of Punjab and anot nother (CWP-19050-1996 v. State of Punjab (C ed ab (CWP-11130-1999

ell as by this Court in Som Nath G th Gandhi Vs. State of Punjab and anot nother (CWP-19050-1996, dec decided on 19.12.1996); and Dr. H.S. A .S. Aneja Vs. State of Punjab (C ab (CWP-11130-1999, decided on 09.09.1 .09.1999). 5) Secondly, the Punishing A hing Authority had sought prior approval o oval of the Punjab Public Service C al of rvice Commission for dismissal of the petition etitioner from service, which was g y of was granted. However, a copy of such appr approval/report was not supplied pplied to the petitioner, depriving from submitting objections/res ns/response thereto. In such circumstan mstances, the petitioner’s right to ight to defend has been acutely hampered pered. On this aspect, he referred erred to the decision in Union of India and and others Vs. S.K.Kapoor, (2 , r, (2011) 4 SCC 589, wherein, the Hon’bl Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held that in case, report of the Union Pu n Public Service Commission is relied upon by Disciplinar iplinary Authority, it is of paramoun amount importance to supply the same to t to the employee concerned, el t to else it would tantamount to violation o tion of principles of natural justic justice. He further relied upon verdicts of the Division Benches of this Court in Dr. Vijay Khariwal wal Vs. State of Punjab and an , d another, 2013 (4) SCT 302, and State tate of Punjab and others Vs. - Vs. G.S. Sidhu (LPA No. 383- 2019, dec decided on 20.2.2019). 6) Adverting to the third issue issue, he took this Court through the decisi decision dated 29.05.1996, rende rendered by a Division of this Court in rt in CWP-3050-1996 (M/s Daljit S ljit Singh and Brother Vs. The State of P of Punjab and others), which w ich was filed by none other than AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-4- the contrac ontractor, who had executed the w the work involved in the present lis, for rele or release of payment, which was d on h was alleged to be withheld on account o unt of excess payment. Consequ nsequently, the writ petition was allowed, a ed, and the amount was directed r of ected to be released in favour of the contra contractor. Referring to the factua factual aspect of the matter, as explained ained above, he averred that the ba the basic foundation, upon which the charg charges were levelled against ainst the petitioner, has been demolishe olished. As an upshot, further pro er proceedings emanating from such alleg allegations also lose legal sanctity rt to nctity, necessitating this Court to set aside aside the dismissal order, and to nd to restore the dignity of the petitioner b ioner by reinstating him in service. vice. 7) Per contra, learned State tate counsel, while vociferously opposing sing the arguments advanced o ner, ed on behalf of the petitioner, asserted th rted that, if the Disciplinary Authori uthority concurs with the reasons assigned i ned in the enquiry report, it is not is not required to record detailed reasons, in ons, in support of its decision. To . To substantiate her plea, she placed reli ed reliance on the decisions of the rt in of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of O of Orrisa Vs.Bidyabhushan Mo ; Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779; and High igh Court of Judicature at Bo S. t Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil, 2000 2000 (1) SCC 416. 8) Further, she argued that in ) of in terms of Article 320(3)(c) of the Const Constitution of India, consultatio ultation with the Punjab Public Service Co ice Commission is directory in na in nature. While referring to the observatio rvations made in S.K. Kapoor (su r (supra), she submitted that in case, the the Disciplinary Authority seeks seeks and relies on the advice AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-5- solicited ited from the Public Service Comm ommission, as decisive material against th nst the delinquent employee, the lied, the same must be supplied, preceding eding the final decision. Precisely cisely, it is essential, only if the advice is f ce is foundation of the guilt and pu nd punishment. However, in the instant cas nt case, though the advice was so as sought, but the same was not made the e the foundational basis for pass r. In passing the dismissal order. In such a situ a situation, the authority concerne cerned was not constrained with any such such necessity to supply a copy copy of the advise/report to the petitioner. ioner. While putting her submissio missions at rest, she contended that the decision in M/s Daljit Singh a gh and Brothers (supra), has no bearing earing on the case of the petitioner itioner, as there was no allegation of misapp isappropriation or embezzlemen ctor. lement against the contractor. Further, er, neither he was signatory the bills nor measurem surement books, but the petitioner ioner herein stands on a different pedestal, stal, being the main culprit, who had undertaken the measurem surements and sanctioned the bills e bills. FACTUAL TUAL MATRIX 9) Before dealing with the extensive contentions advanced nced on behalf of the parties, rties, a concise recital of the undisputed sputed sequence of events, whi , which led the parties to the current sta nt stage, shall be imperative. 10) The petitioner-Shingar C ar Chand, while posted as Executive utive Engineer, Central Works D .e.f. rks Division, Hoshiarpur, w.e.f. Septembe ember, 1994, was manning t the duties of In-charge of constructio truction of an approach road to H d to High Level Bridge over the AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-6- Beas Rive iver, near Sri Hargobindpur. T To take stock of the ongoing project and ct and sanction the pending bills . bills was also a part of the task. In this wa is way, he accorded approval to al to the payment of 06 running bills from from 11th to 16th, amounting of ver, g of Rs.1.67 crores. However, dissatisfied tisfied with the work, the Superintending Engineer (responde ondent No.2), later on, got m got measurements re-checked through a gh a Junior Engineer (respond spondent No.3). Eventually, he submitted itted a measurement report tha t of rt that an excess payment of Rs.1,22,22 ,22,22,602/-, up to the 16th bill, bill, had been made, which was also endo endorsed by three Sub Divisiona lt, a isional Engineers. As a result, a complaint plaint, in this regard, was made to t e to the higher authorities, which culminated inated into suspension of Shinga hingar Chand and M.S. Grewal (petitioners tioners), along with Iqbal Singh, J ngh, Junior Engineer, vide order dated 07.1 d 07.12.1995. Thereafter, a charg 996, charge-sheet dated 04.03.1996, was serve served upon the petitioner, emb embodying the following four charges: ges:- “Charge No.1 During the the course of execution of the work you made payment for for quantities which were excess of the quantity at the site th te this cause excess payment of Rs.1,22,22,602/- to M/s Daljit aljit Singh Brothers for which you are responsible. Charge No. 2. That on th n the execution of the said work you defrauded the Govt. of a - of an amount of Rs.1,22,22,602/- in collusion with other office fficers and M/s Daljit Singh and Brothers contractor. Charge No.3. It was you your duty to inspect/check the work at site before making pa g payments for the same; and to make for same by safegua guarding Govt. interest. By not AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-7- doing so you have caused w d with serious lapse in discharge of your duty for which you are are responsible. Charge No.4. That you you manipulated submission of progress in excess of actual p ual progress at the site and made an attempt to misled the Seni enior Officers in this way you are personally responsible for rep r reporting false progress.” 11) It is necessary to pause he se here to pen down that a bare perusal of sal of the aforesaid charges vivid vividly indicates that the same revolve a lve around the excess paymen yment of Rs.1,22,22,602/-, as sanctioned tioned by the petitioner. Resumin und, suming the factual background, the petition etitioner, within the stipulated time ly to d timeframe, furnished a reply to the charge charge-sheet, which did not find f ities, find favour with the authorities, and hence hence, declared unsatisfactory. 12) While flowing with the proc procedure, M.S. Guram, Chief Engineer, neer, was appointed as Inquiry quiry Officer, vide order dated

29.01.1997

1.1997. However, subsequently, ently, he was replaced with G.S.Mann Mann, Superintending Enginee rcle, ngineer, Construction Circle, Ferozepur zepur, vide order dated 26.06.199 6.1997. Thereupon, the enquiry was conc concluded, after affording oppo opportunity of hearing to the parties. As As regards the charge No.1, o.1, the Enquiry Officer opined the delinquent had made de an excess payment of Rs.1,13,84 ,13,84,947/- in the 17th running bill. g bill. Likewise, he observed that charges No.2 and 3, also stood proved .4 is proved. So far as charge No.4 is concerned erned, it was not discussed, b ed, being not pressed by the Presenting enting Officer. Hence, per the rep e report, the charges were duly proved ag ed against the petitioner. Thereaf hereafter, a copy of the enquiry AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-8- report was rt was supplied to the petitioner, , to which, he submitted the response/ onse/objections on 13.05.1998. 998. Ultimately, the impugned order cam r came into existence, resulting into ng into dismissal of the petitioner from serv service. That is how, the petiti petitioner is before this Court beseechin eching indulgence of this Court. LYSIS ANALYSIS 13) Ex facie, the exercise of e of powers to terminate an employee loyee from service is ordinarily a tion. arily an administrative function. Notably, it , it assumes the character of it is r of quasi-judicial function, if it is preceded enquiry allegations indiscipline cipline/misconduct; dismissal orde l order is founded on the enquiry report; ana analysis of objections/response f the onse; and strict adherence of the golden rule en rule of Audi Alteram Partem. On s to Once the authority decides to hold an en an enquiry, it is under the statutor atutory obligation to examine the legality of lity of the charge-sheet, as to e is to whether, due procedure is followed b wed by the Enquiry Officer, and ad and adherence to the procedural safeguard guard provided under the service r rvice rules, governing the service conditions itions of the delinquent employ not? mployee, is ensured or not? Likewise, t wise, the Disciplinary Authority is a is also required to assess the validity of of the enquiry report and verac veracity of evidence led by the respective ective parties. Therefore, any orde y order, which has been passed in pursuan rsuance of such exercise of pow f powers, certainly assumes the quasi-judic judicial function. 14) In the backdrop of the abo e abovesaid legal position, this Court can rt can safely conclude that the the impugned dismissal order AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-9- stems out s out of the quasi-judicial functio unction, and it is required to be subjected ected to the rigors of judicial sc ial scrutiny, accordingly. In the matter at er at hand, the Enquiry Officer he cer held that first three charges stood duly duly proved against the delinque rge, linquent, and the fourth charge, as already lready observed above, was not not pressed by the Presenting Officer. T er. Thereafter, the enquiry repo report was served upon the petitioner, ioner, affording him an opp opportunity file written objections ctions/response, as also a persona , the ersonal hearing. Whereupon, the impugned gned dismissal order was passed, ons, ssed, but none of the objections, as submit ubmitted by the petitioner, was was dealt with. Evidently, the impugned gned order carries description of nly, ion of the factual narration only, and on the on the basis thereof, the Punishin nishing Authority concurred with the enquiry nquiry report. 15) Needless to assert that the as a he reasons always act as a nexus bet s between the facts and the co e conclusion arrived at. In the absence o nce of any reasons, the order u t be rder under challenge cannot be idered considered to be a speaking orde order. In this regard, observatio rvations made by the Hon’ble Sup Lal le Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Capoor (s or (supra), are required to be refe e referred to:- “In the context of th f the effect upon the rights of aggrieved persons, as mem embers of a public service who are entitled to just and reaso asonable treatment, by reason of protections conferred upon on them by Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution, which are re available to them throughout their service, it was incumben bent on the Selection Committee to have stated reasons in a n a manner which would disclose how the record of each office fficer superseded stood in relation to records of others who wer were to be preferred, particularly AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-10- as this is practically the only only remaining visible safeguard against possible injustice a e and arbitrariness in making selections. If that had been d en done, facts on service records of officers considered by the the Selection Committee would have been correlated to the c he conclusions reached. Reasons are the links 'between the the materials on which certain conclusions are based and nd the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is app r a applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely a ial. ely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a ration ational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusio lusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions ns recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasona sonable. We think that it is not enough to say that preferenc a rence should be given because a certain kind of process was g as gone through by the Selection Committee. This is all that that the Supposed statement of reasons amounts We, to. We, therefore, mandatory provisions of Regu egulation 5(5) were not complied with. We that relian eliance was rightly placed by respondents on two decision e sions of this Court relating to the effect of noncompliance with ns. with such mandatory provisions. These were: Associated Elec vt. Electrical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta vs. Its Work Workmen, AIR 1967 SUPREME E COURT 284 and the Collec Keshav Prasad Goenka & O vs. ollector of Monghyr & Ors vs. & Ors, (1963) 1 SCR 98.” 16) While applying the ratio Lal ratio laid down in Mohan Lal Capoor (s or (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme /s reme Court in its decision in M/s Kranti As Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), unequivocally, reinforces the vitality of ty of existence of reasons, in sup in support of the orders. It has been held held that in Indian set up, there re exists a well settled judicial trend man mandating that reasons be assig n in assigned to every order, even in administra inistrative decisions, particularly, w arly, when such decisions affect AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-11- anyone pr ne prejudicially. Further, reasons asons have virtually become as indispensa pensable a component of deci decision making process as observing rving principles of natural justice b tice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by ad by administrative bodies:- “15. The necessity of of giving reason by a body or authority f in support of its decision came up i consideration before this Co Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognized a so a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and qua quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinctio ction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually ally reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in vs. rt in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others re rs reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.

17. The expression ‘sp ‘speaking order’ was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairn xt. airns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while e ile explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders ers with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an ce, at an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 187 30 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report).

51. Summarizing the the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend rend has always been to record reasons, even in administrativ trative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority m ity must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done done as well. d. Recording of reasons also also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary ex - y exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative tive power. AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-12- e. Reasons reassure that disc discretion has been exercised by n the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous cons onsiderations. f. Reasons have virtually b a lly become as indispensable a component of a decision m n making process as observing principles of natural justice ice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies dies. g. Reasons facilitate the p e process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend end in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutiona tional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based sed on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judic judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the s the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judici dicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and m. and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that t at the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This i his is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice de e delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparen arency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-jud judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decisio cision making process then it is impossible to know whether her the person deciding is faithful the doctrine of prece recedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of dec decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence o ce of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated ated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of j of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only m ly makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors b t to rs but also makes them subject to AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-13- broader scrutiny. (See David vid Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward L rd Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to re to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness ness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a lly a component of human rights and was considered part of S of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at vs. at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 E 01 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which require quires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for jud r judicial decisions”. o. In all common law jurisdi risdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents ents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirem irement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence a ce and is virtually a part of “Due Process”. 17) In a quest to further eluc e, a elucidate the subject issue, a Larger Ben er Bench in S.N. Mukherjee (supr supra) harmoniously carved out that assig assigning reasons in support of l to rt of every order is integral to decision m sion making process. The objec s of object underlying the rules of natural jus ral justice is to prevent the miscarr iscarriage of justice, and secure fair play in play in action. Therefore, the requ r its requirement of reasons for its decision b sion by an administrative authori uthority exercising quasi-judicial functions tions achieves this object by t by excluding chances of arbitrarine rariness and ensuring a degree of s of ree of fairness in the process of decision- -making. The relevant ob nt observations are extracted hereinbelo inbelow:- “38. The object und underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscar iscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action." As As pointed out earlier AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-14- requirement about recordin rding of reasons for its decision by an administrative author thority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this obje object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring ring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-maki aking. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the p ce, he principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that that the requirement to record reason can be regarded a ed as one of the principles of natural justice which gove govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. T es. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Th . The extent of their application depends upon the partic articular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction ha has been conferred on the administrative authority. Wi . With regard to the exercise of a particular power by a y an administrative authority including exercise of judicia dicial or quasi- judicial functions the legislature, while confe onferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in th in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order p er passed by the administrative authority be d recorded the order and be communicated to the agg aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requ requirement. It may do so by making an express provis ovision to that affect as those contained in the Administra istrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administ inistrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Aus Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specifie cified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the ena enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary sary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the sc e scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public a ic interest underlying such a provision would outweight t ght the salutary purpose served by the requirement to rec record the reasons. The said AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-15- requirement cannot, there herefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

39. For the reason asons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in ca in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with ith expressly or by necessary implication, an administr nistrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial fun l functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. ion.” 18) On the touchstone of the of the abovesaid guiding legal proposition ositions, this Court is of the co he considered opinion that the decision- -making authority erred, not not only by failing to record reasons b ons but also by neglecting to com to comprehend and address the objections ctions filed by the petitioner. 19) At juncture, this Co is Court must advert contention ention advanced on behalf of the S the State that mere concurrence with the the enquiry report suffices, an s, and therefore, there is no requireme irement record r further reasons. Nevertheless, observatio rvations of the Hon’ble Supreme ove, reme Court, as extracted above, affirms the s the view of this Court that no d to no weight can be accorded to such a ba a bald assertion. In fact, extendin tending an opportunity to furnish objections ctions to the enquiry report is n a t is not a mere formality or a mechanica hanical process. Rather, it ensure ensures eradication of even the remotest p test possibility of arbitrariness an e. In ss and miscarriage of justice. In the absenc bsence of the reasons, the higher igher authority would not be able to discern scern the validity of the order. AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-16- 20) The second limb of the subm e submissions of learned counsel for the pet e petitioner was that petitioner has g to has been prejudiced, owing to non-supply supply of the report, vide wh e which, the Public Service Commissio mission concurred with a view to d w to dismiss his services. 21) Before delving into this issu is issue, it would be expedient to have a gla a glance at the observations in at in S.K.Kapoor (supra), that in case, repo , report of the Union Public Servic Service Commission is not relied upon by t by the Disciplinary Authority, it l to ity, it would not be essential to supply the ly the same to the delinquent. H rt is nt. However, if such a report is relied upo d upon, then the same must be s t be supplied in advance to the concerned erned employee, otherwise, there , there will be infraction of the principles iples of natural justice:- “There may be a ca case where the report of the Union Public Service Comm ommission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority an y and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a ly a copy of the same to the concerned employee. Howe owever, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in d in advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, ther there will be violation of the principles of natural justice tice.” 22) On the anvil of the abovesa , let ovesaid pivotal observations, let us, once a nce again, test the impugned ord i.e., d order from a perspective, i.e., as to whet whether, the Disciplinary Authori uthority relied upon the approval of Punjab unjab Public Service Commiss t a mmission, while arriving at a conclusion lusion to dismiss the petitioner from r from service or not? AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-17- 23) In context of the matter in i ove, er in issue, as referred to above, the opinio opinion solicited by the Departme artment from the Public Service Commissio mission was not relied upon to n to reach the conclusion that petitioner ioner was required to be dism The dismissed from service. The operative r ative reasoning was to the effect th fect that ‘in consideration of facts of the cas case and agreeing to the Inqu Inquiry report’. In nutshell, the Authority h ority had only relied upon the fac e factual sequence of the case the enquiry report. Therefore, efore, non-furnishing of such advice/com ce/comments to the petitioner has n e to has not caused any prejudice to him, in an in any way. The conclusive port portion of the impugned order reads as u s as under:- “In view of findings o gs of the Inquiry Officer an in consideration of fact of of the case, he misused his powers as a Government ent officer and guilty of gross misconduct in causing loss loss to government exchequer to the extent of such a hu a huge amount as responsible government officer and a d a decision had been taken tentatively to dismiss Shri S ce. hri Shingar Chand from service. The Punjab Public Service rvice Commission Patiala was also consulted. They have ave expressed their consent to the dismissal of the se service of Shingar Chand Executive Engineer vide the 13 e their letter No.DS-196/A.7/113 dated 5.2.99. In consideration of fac f facts of the case and agreeing to the Inquiry report Gover vernor of Punjab is pleased to order dismissal of Shri hri Shinga Chand, Executive Engineer (under suspens pension) P.W.D. (B&R) Punjab Government Service rvice with immediate effect.” AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-18- 24) A bare perusal of abov above extracted part of impugned gned order makes it clear that t that there is not even a single statement ment that the impugned decisio ecision is predicated upon the advice sol solicited from the Public Service re, it ervice Commission, therefore, it does not not breach the ratio of the law law laid down in S.K. Kapoor (supra). As a sequel of the abovesaid rt is esaid deliberations, this Court is of the affir e affirmed opinion that the impug impugned order, indeed, passes the test of est of legality, on this aspect. 25) The third argument raised raised before this Court is not required t ired to be delved into, at this s this stage. For, this Court has already he dy held that the order under chal r challenge is non-speaking and cryptic, an , and therefore, the same is ide. e is required to be set aside. However, ever, it is imperative to note that e that both the petitioners have already at dy attained the age of superannu rannuation, therefore, the prayer qua reinst reinstatement and quashing the the order of suspension, has already be dy become redundant. 26) In the wake of ion, he aforementioned discussion, the af supported rted with the law laid down by th ourt, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referre eferred to above, the impugne ugned orders in both these petitions ions are set aside. Consequen equently, both the matters are remitted to tted to the authority concerned for , in ed for taking decision afresh, in the light of ight of the observations recorded he ded hereinabove. 27) However, as the matter ha ter has spanned over more than three deca decades, and the petitioners mu ays, rs must be at their twilight days, therefore, fore, a Mandamus is passed upon d to, upon the authority concerned to, AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-19- after afford affording due opportunity of hearin hearing to both the petitioners or their auth authorised representatives, as t , as the case may be, on the objections ctions already filed by them, pass in a pass a speaking order, within a period of d of six weeks from the receipt ceipt of a certified copy of this order.

28. Accordingly, both the writ p of, writ petitions stand disposed of, in the abov e above terms. A photocopy of this order e of order be placed on the file of connected ected case. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

06.04.2026 4.2026 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes Yes/No AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document