28.11.2025 SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-9659- -2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 216 Singh Parmjit Singh State of Punja f Punjab and others CWP-9659-2025 (O&M) .2025 Date of decision:28.11.2025 SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate cate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sunil K. Rana, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ate for te for Mr. Anand Rohilla, Advocate for HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The he present petition has been filed f the filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution o ution of India for issuance of a writ, o ure of , order or direction in the nature of certiorari for for quashing the order dated 07.08.2 which 7.08.2024 (Annexure P-15) vide which the applicatio lication for stay of recovery and sta r was nd statutory appeal of petitioner was dismissed by ssed by passing a non-speaking order. ing of rder. Further praying for quashing of recovery noti otice dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P dated xure P-12) and the charge-sheet dated 04.01.2022 (A 022 (Annexure P-5) and all subseque urther bsequent proceedings thereto. Further praying for for issuance of a writ in the n the nature of mandamus directing ecting PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9659- -2025 2 respondent N dent No.2 to restore the recovery mad tioner ry made from the salary of petitioner vide recovery covery notice dated 07.02.2024 (Anne (Annexure P-12). 2. Learned counsel for the petition the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has er has challenged the order dated 07. , vide ed 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-15), vide which his ap his application for stay of recovery a al has very as well as statutory appeal has been dismisse ismissed. Learned counsel further subm of the er submits that in fact a perusal of the order dated 0 ated 07.08.2024 would show that the itioner hat the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dec en decided in a mechanical manner by order. ner by passing a non-speaking order. As such, the h, the impugned orders passed are no f law are not sustainable in the eyes of law and has been s been passed without citing any reason reasons and gist. 3. Learned counsel appearing for r not in g for respondents No.2 and 3 is not in a position to ion to justify the impugned order. 4. I have heard the learned couns efully counsel for the parties and carefully gone through rough the case file with their able ass record ble assistance. A perusal of the record transpires tha res that that the Appellate authority ha
Decision
order rity has merely mentioned in the order that after goin er going through the complete file, he n that ile, he has came to the conclusion that the order of er of stopping of increment with cum ery of ith cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.9,89,310/ 9,310/- is appropriate and no further o s case rther orders can be passed in this case and it was ad was advised that petitioner in future d n and ture do work with determination and honesty. 5. A Two-Judge Bench of the Ho e case the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti As i Associates Private Limited and med and another Vs. Masood Ahmed PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9659- -2025 3 Khan and nd others (2010) 9 SCC 496 wh ustice while speaking through Justice A.K.Ganguly anguly made the following observation rvation:- “51. Summarizing the above dis e discussion, this Court holds : lly become as trend has always been to record cord ions rative decisions, if such decisions iscretion has been exercised by the the ding nt grounds and by disregarding indispensable a e a making process as observing ving even by judicial, quasi-judicial and even ty must record reasons in support of rt of ce on recording of reasons is meant eant only of justice that justice must not only to be done as well. (d) Recording of g of a valid restraint on any possible sible even icial and quasijudicial or even (a) In India the judicial tren reasons, even in administrativ affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority mu its conclusions. (c) Insistence on to serve the wider principle of j be done it must also appear to b reasons also operates as a va arbitrary exercise of judicia administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discre decision-maker on relevant g extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually component of a decision-m principles of natural justice by j by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the proces courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend rule of law and constitutiona reasoned decisions based on rel lifeblood of judicial decision- tice. that reason is the soul of justice. e as dicial opinions these days can be as (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicia authorities who deliver them. All . All different as the judges and aut e common purpose which is to to these decisions serve one co been at the relevant factors have been demonstrate by reason that th the is is important for sustaining the objectively considered. This is delivery system. litigants' faith in the justice deliv icial s a requirement for both judicial (j) Insistence on reason is a ency. accountability and transparency icial authority is not candid enough ugh (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicia le to ing process then it is impossible to about his/her decision-making p eciding is faithful to the doctrine of e of know whether the person decidi of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in s in precedent or to principles of i t. A be cogent, clear and succinct. A support of decisions must be rend in all countries committed to d to r of ional governance is in favour of the n relevant facts. This is virtually the iple -making justifying the principle rior ocess of judicial review by superior PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9659- -2025 4 be ubber-stamp reasons' is not to be n making process. at transparency is the sine qua non non judicial powers. Transparency in y in kers akes the judges and decision makers lso makes them subject to broader ader ndor iro in Defence of Judicial Candor view 731-737). o record reasons emanates from the the ss in decision-making, the said said and y a component of human rights and asbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 994) 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford ford le 6 rein the Court referred to Article 6 of Human Rights which requires, ires, icial reasons must be given for judicial pretence of reasons or 'rubbe equated with a valid decision ma (m) It cannot be doubted that tr of restraint on abuse of judi decision making not only makes less prone to errors but also m scrutiny. (See David Shapiro i (1987) 100 Haward Law Review (n) Since the requirement to rec broad doctrine of fairness requirement is now virtually a c was considered part of Strasbo 19 EHHR 553, at 562 para 29 a : 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein of European Convention of H "adequate and intelligent reaso decisions". dictions judgments play a vital role role (o) In all common law jurisdicti the future. Therefore, for for for in setting up precedents fo irement of giving reasons for the the development of law, requirem Due and is virtually a part of "Due decision is of the essence an Process". 6. Reason is the pulse that keeps well- keeps Justice alive. It is now a well engrained pri ed principle of our jurisprudence tha upon ce that reason is the foundation upon which justice justice stands. The consistent voice of s that ice of the Supreme Court echoes that an unreasone easoned order is not merely a procedu ustice rocedural lapse but a denial of justice itself. The g The giving of reasons transforms bility, forms authority into accountability, discretion int ion into discipline, and power into fair nt that to fairness. It assures the litigant that justice has n has not only been done but has been uty to s been thought through. The duty to give reasons easons, therefore, is not a formality essity mality but a constitutional necessity flowing from g from the rule of law. 7. In view of the above, the presen with a present petition is disposed of with a direction to t n to the appellate authority to decide iod of decide the appeal within a period of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9659- -2025 5 three months onths by passing a speaking order. Ti d, the . Till such decision is rendered, the recovery in t ry in terms of the punishment order order order shall remain stayed. The order dated 07.08.2 7.08.2024 (Annexure P-15) is also set lso set aside. 8. Pending miscellaneous applica stands application(s), if any, shall stands ed of. disposed of. November P.C 28, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable king/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ortable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.15 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document