CWP-30098 v. Shiromani Gu

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has be has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Const Constitution of India for the issuan re of issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari ri for quashing the order dated 5), dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby the y the petitioner was dismissed from s from service and the resolution dated

08.06.2024 ( 024 (Annexure P-16) whereby the r was y the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by sed by the Appellate Authority. It is fu ion be It is further prayed that a direction be issued for rei for reinstatement of the petitioner with l back er with continuity of service, full back wages and all and all consequential benefits. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 2 CONTENTI ENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner jo er joined the service of the resp respondent Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak dhak Committee (hereinafter referred as a eferred to as ‘SGPC’) initially as a temporary em ary employee and was later issued issued an appointment letter dated

26.08.2006 (A 006 (Annexure P-1). His services wer d and es were subsequently regularized and made perman ermanent vide an order dated 10.08.2 ever, 0.08.2010 (Annexure P-2). However, the petitioner itioner was served with a charge shee ure P- sheet dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P 3). The prim e primary allegation in the charge she 3, the ge sheet was that on 17.12.2013, the petitioner lef er left his duty at 3:50 p.m., ten minu d time n minutes prior to the scheduled time of 4:00 p.m., p.m., and was subsequently found i ound in an inebriated condition. Th . The petitioner sub er submitted a detailed reply (Annex Annexure P-4) categorically denying these allegati llegations, asserting that he never con d that er consumed drugs or liquor and that the charges w eless. rges were entirely false and baseless.

3. d Learned counsel argued the dismissal order dated

28.05.2015 (A 015 (Annexure P-5) was passed in gro les of in gross violation of the principles of natural justic

justice. It is contended that no formal ed, no ormal inquiry was ever conducted, no evidence was ce was recorded, and the petitioner wa tunity ner was never afforded an opportunity for a hearing earing before the extreme penalty of While lty of dismissal was imposed. While the dismissal missal order mentions a Sub-Committ sserts mmittee report, the petitioner asserts that he was n was never associated with any such f any such inquiry, nor was a copy of any report suppl supplied to him despite requests urther uests (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted th ted that the dismissal order was is f the was issued by the Manager of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 3 Gurudwara, w wara, who is an authority lower than th than the appointing authority, thereby rendering the ng the order legally unsustainable.

4. Regarding the appellate proce itially proceedings, the petitioner initially filed an appe appeal before the Executive Committ ure P- mmittee on 04.01.2016 (Annexure P 7). Due to in e to inaction by the respondents, the p Court , the petitioner approached this Court vide CWP N WP No. 21387 of 2016, which wa .2016 ich was disposed of on 17.10.2016 (Annexure P ure P-8) with a direction to the res appeal he respondents to decide the appeal within two m two months. The respondents subseq tioner subsequently informed the petitioner that his appea appeal had already been dismissed on of the sed on 22.03.2016, yet no copy of the resolution wa ion was provided until the petitioner so t. The oner sought it under the RTI Act. The petitioner the er then challenged this initial dismiss 08 of ismissal through CWP No. 16908 of

2017. On 22. On 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-12), this tition, ), this Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside aside the appellate order on the groun g and grounds that it was non-speaking and cryptic and and directed the Appellate authori uthority to pass a fresh order after providing a ing a personal hearing to the petitio nt on petitioner. The written statement on behalf of the of the Respondents in CWP No. 169 ed on o. 16908 of 2017 has been placed on record as Ann as Annexure P-13.

5. In compliance with the order d ure P- rder dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P 12), the Ap e Appellate Authority passed a fr d the a fresh order and dismissed the petitioner’s er’s appeal vide resolution dated 16). dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P-16). Learned coun d counsel contended that the fresh res ellate sh resolution passed by the Appellate Authority rep ty repeats the same legal errors an ecific ors and fails to address the specific PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 4 grounds raise s raised by the petitioner. It relies on n and es on a Legal Assistant’s opinion and a Sub-Comm Committee report, neither of which we ner. It ich were supplied to the petitioner. It is further sub er submitted that the respondents’ rel ession ts’ reliance on the alleged confession of the petitio petitioner is wholly misplaced, as no s as no such confession was ever made by him and and the document sought to be to be o be relied upon is asserted to be fabricated an ted and manipulated. OBSERVAT RVATION & ANALYSIS

6. I have heard the learned couns counsel for the petitioner and have perused the re nce. d the record with her able assistance.

7. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prab a Prabandhak Committee has framed Service Rule e Rules governing the service conditio ercise onditions of its employees in exercise of powers un ers under Section 69 of the Sikh Gurd hereof Gurdwaras Act, 1925. Rule 4 thereof regulates the es the termination of an employee and ee and reads as under: “(4) Te 4) Termination (Maukufi) (A) Th as per by the period The employees can be dismissed o per the following rules, but an appe the President can be filed before th riod of thirty days from the date of te ed only by his appointing authority ppeal against the termination made in a re the Executive Committee within a of termination. (B) In etc.) g concer days fr In case of any punishment (suspen c.) given to the employees of Gurd der the charge of Shiromani Gurdwa ncerned employee can file an appe ys from the date of passing of order spension, termination, fine, warning urdwaras and all the departments , the rdwara Prabandhak Committee, the 30 appeal against the same within 30 rder against him. (1) Any employee of Shiromani degraded or removed due to his taking liquor or falling in bad v mani committee can be terminated, ted, his misconduct, malafide intention, tion, tion, ad vices, but before his termination, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 5 degradation or removal he wou leveled against him in writing i appended by one Statement of the charge-sheet has been fram supplied. The reply to such char employees within stipulated per the charges or seeks enquiry i committee deems it proper th charges will be got conducted i on every item of charge-sheet, w the evidence shall be taken in t the employee will also be pe witnesses. If the employee want then the same will also be cons would be necessary to bring into committee deems it proper th particular defence evidence, the lead the same. On proving the against the employee. There w abovesaid method in case of employees, they can be removed desires to do so. would be served with the charges ng in the form of charge-sheet duly t of charges, on the basis of which framed against him, shall also be o be charges shall also be taken from the period and if he refuses to admit iry in that regard or the executive r then the enquiry into the said ted in the presence of employee and eet, which he denies, in that regard in that regard in his presence and e permitted to cross-examine the wants to lead his defence evidence, nce, considered for some reasons, which into notice in writing. If the inquiry r that there is no need for any n to , then no permission will be given to g the charge, action will be taken re will be no need to adopt the of temporary or under probation er it oved by the committee whenever it (2) If the employee wants to pre document etc. in his defence the and if the copies of the same is the same will be provided to him will also be permitted to inspec cost. o present any official record or any e then he will be permitted to do so o so e is required by the employee then d he o him without any objection and he e of spect the concerned record free of (3) Every such employee who ha or removed, the of executive c and the inquiry committee re provided to him free of cost. o has been terminated or degraded ve copies of final order committee l be e reports in that regard shall be (4) (a) removal record agains destroyed for three years; rath custody. The termination, degra gainst the employees shall not be t be rather it will be kept under safe egradation or (b) The employee who after his is reinstated without any punishment shall be entitled for remaining s his suspension by holding innocent in service, he ng salary of suspension period. (5) The Gurdwara Committee removal of any of its employee, the same to Shiromani Gurdwa ttee at the time of termination or n or yee, would send the information of n of dwara Prabandhak Committee and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 6 the employee dismissed by S Gurdwara committee, be not en without the permission of comm no work be got from him, but person can be recruited as emp the permission of Shiromani co Shiromani committee, if it is pro of embezzlement, dishonesty or Gurdwara Prabandhak Commit such person.” by Shiromani Committee or any ot engaged by any other committee ommittee who has removed him and but in special circumstances, such employee in other committee with ni committee. But in the inquiry of y of s proved that such person is accused y or immorality, then the Shiromani mmittee shall not permit to engage

8. A study of the abovementione at the ntioned provision indicates that the service of an of any employee can be terminated f ion of ated for misconduct, consumption of alcohol and l and falling in bad vices. Evidently tioner dently, the conduct of the petitioner satisfies this s this criterion. Furthermore, the ing a the provision calls for serving a chargesheet sheet upon the delinquent employ mployee, receiving his reply and conducting a ting an inquiry, if necessary. The The overarching goal of the said procedure is ure is clearly to ensure that the de t left the delinquent employee is not left wanting for in g for information with respect to the di itiated the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, him, which essentially amounts to les of nts to honouring the principles of natural justic justice.

9. A two-Judge bench of the Ho he Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Pat f Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 96) 3 SCC 364, speaking through Justice B.P. J B.P. Jeevan Reddy, opined as follows ollows in this regard: “12. It one m severa [wheth the Co exercis

2. It would be appropriate to pause e may entertain with respect to t veral procedural provisions govern hether provided by rules made und e Constitution, under regulations ercise of the power conferred by a ause here and clarify a doubt which The to the principles aforestated. The verning the disciplinary enquiries under the proviso to Article 309 of 9 of ions made by statutory bodies in s in , by by a statute or for that matter, by PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 7 way of natura the sev bias. O natura rules/r be said a clari whethe princip xxx xxx 34. W discuss evolve orders (1) An conseq the ru should should nature (2) A explain the tes (3) In this: reason officer interes said to cases f catego be exa violatio defend been s remedy therefr connec proced violati judgme ay of a statute] are nothing but el tural justice and their several facet e several facets of rule of audi alte as. One may ask, if a decision arrive tural justice is void, how come a de les/regulations/statutory provisions i said to be not void in certain situati clarification - which in turn calls f ether a decision arrived at in viola inciples of natural justice is void. x xxx xxx . We may summarise the princip scussion. [These are by no means in olved keeping in view the context ders of punishment imposed by an em ) An order passed imposing a nsequent upon a disciplinary/depar e rules/regulations/statutory provis ould not be set aside automatical ould enquire whether (a) the provis ture, or (b) whether it is procedural ) A substantive provision has nor plained hereinbefore and the theor e test of prejudice would not be appli ) In the case of violation of a proce is: procedural provisions are gen asonable and adequate oppor ficer/employee. They are, generall terest. Violation of any and every p id to automatically vitiate the enqui ses falling under 'no notice', 'no tegories, the complaint of violation examined from the point of view o olation has prejudiced the del fending himself properly and effec en so prejudiced, appropriate order medy the prejudice including settin der of punishment. If no prejudice erefrom, it is obvious, no interfe nnection, it may be remembered ocedural provisions which are of a olation is by itself proof of prejudic oof of prejudice in such cases. As dgment, take a case where there is after the evidence of the emp ut elaboration of the principles of s of n of facets. It is a case of codification of alteram partem or the rule against rrived at in violation of principles of es of n of a decision arrived at in violation of ons incorporating the said rules can tuations. It is this doubt which needs lls for a discussion of the question et of violation of any and every facet of inciples emerging from the above s intended to be exhaustive and are text of disciplinary enquiries and an employer upon the employee]: a punishment on an employee n of epartmental enquiry in violation of ovisions governing such enquiries tically. The Court or the Tribunal rovision violated is of a substantive ural in character. normally to be complied with as e or heory of substantial compliance or applicable in such a case. rocedural provision, the position is n is g a generally meant for affording a the delinquent pportunity erally speaking, conceived in his t be ery procedural provision cannot be nquiry held or order passed. Except 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' ing' tion of procedural provision should iew of prejudice, viz., whether such delinquent officer/employee effectively. If it is found that he has rders have to be made to repair and etting aside the enquiry and/or the dice is established to have resulted terference is called for. In this ered that there may be certain of a fundamental character, whose t on judice. The Court may not insist on . As explained in the body of the e is a provision expressly providing employer/government is over, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 8 ural provision which is not of a of a int of violation has to be examined , the l compliance. Be that as it may, the a provision can be set aside only ioned prejudice to the delinquent employ eviden opport The pr called whethe Now, t directo princip at the distinc (4)(a) from th employ (b) In concei interes the de expres violati officer waived directi keepin Karun prejud (5) rules/r observ such p of the distinc alteram in the betwee (a) In invalid cases, portunity to lead defence in his e enquiry officer does not give that uent officer/employee asking for it. r it. proof of prejudice as such need be d be i.e., at, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., fair hearing considering all things. ngs. ooked at from the point of view of w of The sions, if one is so inclined. The elow is only another way of looking t or with herein and not a different or ployee shall be given an opport idence, and in a given case, the en portunity in spite of the delinquent e prejudice is self-evident. No proo lled for in such a case. To repeat, t ether the person has received a fair w, this very aspect can also be look rectory and mandatory provisions inciple stated under (4) hereinbelow the same aspect as is dealt with stinct principle. )(a) In the case of a procedural andatory character, the complaint o m the standpoint of substantial com der passed in violation of such a p ere such violation has occasione ployee. procedural provision, which is of a of a ) In the case of violation of a proc ascertained whether the provision is n is andatory character, it has to be asce nceived in the interest of the person rson proceeded against or in public rmer, then it must be seen whether terest. If it is found to be the forme ved the said requirement, either e delinquent officer has waived pressly or by his conduct. If he is fo is found to have waived it, then the der of punishment cannot be set set aside on the ground of said , it is found that the delinquent olation. If, on the other hand, it t be ficer/employee has not waived it or t or that the provision could not be ived by him, then the Court or Trib Tribunal should make appropriat side of the order of punishment], ent], rections [include the setting aside pted by the Constitution Bench in B. in B. eping in mind the approach adopted t of is always the same viz., test of runakar. The ultimate test is a g, as it may be called. ejudice or the test of fair hearing, a governed ) Where s to ions and the only obligation is to les/regulations/statutory provisions justice or, for that matter, wherever serve the principles of natural justic plied by the very nature and impact ch principles are held to be implied e a or the Tribunal should make a the order/action the Court or ion of natural justice [rule of audi stinction between a total violation a facet of the said rule, as explained teram partem] and violation of a fac t be other words, a distinction must be the body of the judgment. In othe i.e., and no adequate opportunity, i.e., ade between "no opportunity" and and "no fair hearing". tween "no notice"/"no hearing" and y be rder passed would undoubtedly be ) In the case of former, the order r nullity if one chooses to]. In such valid [one may call it "void" or nul reserved for the Authority to take ses, normally, liberty will be rese enquiry PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 9 totality of aw, i.e., in accordance with the said procee rule au (b) Bu of aud prejud whethe officer be mad clear t agains (6) Wh princip bear i said ru failure applyin (7) Th interes such s with th decisio oceedings afresh according to law, i le audi alteram partem. ct of violation [of a facet of the rule ) But in the latter case, the effect of e examined from the standpoint of t of audi alteram partem] has to be ex e is the Court or Tribunal has to see is ejudice; in other words, what the C the delinquent e circumstances, the c ve a fair hearing and the orders to rs to ficer/employee did or did not have a nswer to the said query. It is made made shall depend upon the answe oes not apply in the case of rule ear that this principle No. 5 does alf are laid down elsewhere. ainst bias, the test in which behalf a audi alteram partem [the primary ) While applying the rule of audi ourt/Tribunal/Authority must always inciple of natural justice] the Court/ ver-riding objective underlying the ar in mind the ultimate and over s no aring and to ensure that there is no id rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing ctive which should guide them in ilure of justice. It is this objective ions that arise before them. plying the rule to varying situations re the interests of state or public ) There may be situations where t f the rule of audi alteram partem. In . In terest may call for a curtailing of the ave to balance public/State interest ch situations, the Court may have ustice and arrive at an appropriate th the requirement of natural justic cision.”

10. Furthermore, a three-Judge be ge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme dded) (Emphasis added) Court in K.L K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of I of India (1984) 1 SCC 43, while highlighting hting the importance of fairplay in ad quasi- in administrative, judicial and quasi judicial actio l actions opined that it must be see be seen whether any deviation from principles of les of natural justice has caused an ed any prejudice. Speaking through Justice Sabya Sabyasachi Mukharji, the following w ing was held: “41. It advers natura justice whethe princip each p fair pla objecti reason It is true that all actions against verse consequences must be in acc tural justice but whether any pa stice would be applicable to a parti hether there has been any infract inciple, has to be judged, in the ligh ch particular case. The basic requ ir play in action and the decision m jective manner with regard to the asons. We must reiterate again that al or inst a party which involve penal or accordance with the principles of s of y particular principle of natura particular situation or the question fraction of the application of that es of light of facts and circumstances of t be requirement is that there must be on must be arrived at in a just and the relevance of the materials and that the rules of natural justice are PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 10 flexible compla absenc that pr follow case o Hidaya no dou is a gr of dism actual to him backgr of the infract before of this 1968 S "the do jacket of the charac of the particu Hidaya v. Stat In our case, t associa premis circum justice Neithe delinqu xible and cannot be put on any rigi mplaint of violation of principles of sence of opportunity of cross-exami at prejudice has been caused to th llowed. See in this connection the o se of Jankinath Sarangi v. State idayatullah, C.J., observed there at p doubt that if the principles of natur a gross case this Court would inter dismissal; but there are cases and c tual prejudice has been caused to a him of a particular right." Jud ckground of the facts and circumsta the opinion that there has been fraction of any particular rule of na fore us complained in this case. See this Court in the case of Union of In 68 S.L.R. 104 : (1968)2 SCR 186, w he doctrine of natural justice cannot cket of a rigid formula and its appli the jurisdiction conferred on the ad aracter of the rights of the persons the statute and other relevant rticular case". See also in this c idayatullah, C.J., in the case of Cha State of Mysore, AIR 1972 Suprem our opinion, in the background of se, the nature of investigation condu sociated, there has been no infra emises, for the reasons aforesaid, t rcumstances of the case, no infract stice by the absence of a formal op ither cross-examination nor the opp linquent is an integral part of all qua rigid formula. In order to sustain a in a d of s of natural justice on the ground of xamination, it has to be established to the appellant by the procedure he observations of this Court in the tate of Orissa, (1969)3 SCC 392 392. e at page 394 of the report "there is re is atural justice are violated and there interfere by striking down the order and cases. We have to look to what to a person by the supposed denial udged by this principle, in the mstances mentioned before, we are een no real prejudice caused by f natural justice of which appellant See in this connection observations Ors, of India & Anr. v. P.K. Roy & Ors, , where this Court reiterated that it- nnot be imprisoned within the strait pplication depends upon the nature e administrative authority, upon the ons affected, the scheme and policy n a ant circumstances disclosed in a s of is connection the observations of Channabasappa Basappa Happali 645. reme Court 32 : (1971)2 SCR 645 d of facts and circumstances of this onducted in which the appellant was nfraction of that principle. In the id, there has been in the facts and fraction of any principle of natural l opportunity of cross-examination. tion. opportunity to lead evidence by the l quasi-judicial adjudications.”

11. Pertinently, a two-Judge bench o urt in ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dded) (emphasis added) Diljit Singh B ngh Bedi vs. Shrimoni Gurudwara P 011) ara Prabhandak Committee, (2011) 5 SCC 417 17 opined that the dismissal of an inated of an employee, who was terminated from service ervice for bad character under Rule Rules, Rule 4 of the SGPC Service Rules, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 11 would be val be valid if it was preceded by an inq ustice an inquiry. Speaking through Justice A.K. Patnaik atnaik, the following was held: “10. employ charac inquiry Execut Section service of any establi 01.12.2 Comm explan publish finding had de in the the SG

0. We find on a reading of Rule 4 ployee of the SGPC can be dis aracter only after the charges of m quiry conducted by an inquiry ecutive Committee of the SGPC ction 69 of the Act and the Rules ma rvices of any employee of the SGPC any employee for misconduct, on tablished in an inquiry. It appears .12.2007 of the Sub-Committee mmittee of the SGPC that the Su planation of the appellant that blished in the local newspapers we ding in an inquiry that the appella d defamed the SGPC, the High Cou the impugned order that the appell e SGPC and he had been rightly relie t an ule 4 of the Service Rules that an dismissed from service for bad of misconduct are established in an n an iry committee. Thus, though the PC may have the power under s made thereunder to terminate the GPC, it can terminate the services t, only when such misconduct is ct is ears from the inquiry report dated tee constituted by the Executive Sub-Committee had accepted the hat the photographs which were ut a s were of his wife. Thus, without a ellant was guilty of conduct which Court could not have taken a view e to pellant had brought a bad name to relieved from service.”

12. Adverting to the facts of the pr that a the present case, it is evident that a dded) (emphasis added) charge sheet sheet dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P n the xure P-3) was duly served upon the petitioner, to er, to which he submitted a detailed r s, the ailed reply (Annexure P-4). Thus, the petitioner wa er was not blindsided by the discip record disciplinary authorities. The record further indic indicates that a statement (Annexur 08 of nnexure R-3 in CWP No. 16908 of 2017) exists, exists, signed by the petitioner, where action wherein he expressed full satisfaction with the pro e proceedings and acknowledged th in his the same were conducted in his presence. A A perusal of this statement in linary ent indicates that the disciplinary proceedings w dings were in fact conducted in the pr nd he the presence of the petitioner and he was afforded forded an opportunity to present his d ust be t his defence. Furthermore, it must be pointed out out that a confessional statement itioner ement was made by the petitioner PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 12 (Annexure R ure R-1 in CWP No. 16908 of 2017 ion of 2017) regarding the consumption of liquor, which which further supports the findings ent is dings of the inquiry. The incident is also stated to ated to have been witnessed by anot y another employee, namely Satnam Singh, whose whose statement (Annexure R-2 in CW ecords in CWP No. 16908 of 2017) records that the petiti petitioner purchased and consumed li ght of med liquor in his presence. In light of the above, th ve, this Court is of the considered vie failed red view that the petitioner has failed to demonstr onstrate any prejudice caused to f the ed to him in the conduct of the disciplinary p inary proceedings, and no violation of ustice ion of the principles of natural justice e out. is made out.

13. Regarding the petitioner’s cha ’s challenge to the resolution dated

08.06.2024 (A 024 (Annexure P-16) passed by the A the Appellate Authority, reliance ca ce can be placed on ed on a two-Judge Bench judgment of urt in ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, D n, Disciplinary Authority, Rani L ni Lakshmi Bai KGB v. Jagdish Sharan Vars Varshney, (2009) 4 SCC 240, whe ed as , wherein the Court has observed as follows: “7. In elabor that t whatso case(su applica not ca mentio accept any re brief, applied author Divisio (vide p In our opinion, an order of aff aborate reasons as an order of rev at the order of affirmation nee hatsoever. In fact, the said decisio se(supra) has itself stated that the a plication of mind. Whether there w t can only be disclosed by som entioned in the order of the appella cept the proposition that an order o y reasons at all. That order must co ief, so that one can know whethe plied its mind while affirming t thority. The view we are taking w ivisional Forest Officer v. Madhusu ide para 19), and in Madhya Prade f affirmation need not contain as n as f reversal, but that does not mean need not contain any reasons ecision in Prabhu Dayal Grover's ver's the appellate order should disclose d or ere was an application of mind or some reasons, at least in brief, rief, pellate authority. Hence, we cannot der of affirmation need not contain st contain some reasons, at least in st in hether the appellate authority has ng the order of the disciplinary g was also taken by this Court in rt in husudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253 253 n of radesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 13 India, Manuf Court dia, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 6 anufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union o ourt 1785 (vide para 6), etc. urt 671, siemens Engineering & g & ion of India, AIR 1976 Supreme

8. In t contain In the present case, since the appe ntain any reaons, it does not show a appellate authority's order does not w any application of mind.

9. The Bench reporte the jud The purpose of disclosure of reas nch of this Court in the case of S.N ported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that e judicial or quasi-judicial authoritie reasons, as held by a Constitution S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India e in that people must have confidence in rities.

10. Un the au require must b order o Unless reasons are disclosed, how e authority has applied its mind or inimizes chances of arbitrariness quirement of the rule of law that s ust be disclosed in a judicial or quas der of affirmation. , how can a person know whether nd or not? Also, giving of reasons iness. Hence, it is an essential rief, hat some reasons, at least in brief, s an quasi-judicial order, even if it is an No do (vide p doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee's case ide para 36) that : case (supra), it has been observed " ..The appellate or revisional a order, need not give separate revisional authority agrees with order under challenge." h an nal authority, if it affirms such an arate reasons if the appellate or e or with the reasons contained in the

11. Th contain unders appella stating The above observation, in our o der of affirmance need not conta ntained in the order of the origin derstood to mean that even brief re der of affirmance. To take a con pellate authorities can simply dism ating that they agree with the view o ur opinion, really means that the g as ontain an elaborate reasoning as riginal authority, but it cannot be t be ief reasons need not be given in an n an contrary view would mean that dismiss appeals by one line orders ew of the lower authority.”

14. As noted above, the Hon’ble Sup ble Supreme Court has held that while dded) (Emphasis added) an order of af r of affirmation need not be as elabora , brief elaborate as an order of reversal, brief reasons must s must be given to show application o asized tion of mind. It has been emphasized that providing oviding reasons is an essential requirem equirement of rule of law to minimize arbitrariness riness and instill confidence in judicial ies. In udicial or quasi-judicial authorities. In PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 098-2025 14 the present c sent case, a perusal of the resolution ure P- lution dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P 16) passed b ssed by the Appellate Authority indi y indicates that the appeal has been dismissed af sed after due application of mind, a issal, ind, and the reasons for dismissal, though brief, brief, have been clearly indicated i earlier cated in compliance with the earlier directions of ns of this Court. CONCLUSI LUSION

15. In view of the foregoing dis ng discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in ty in the order dated 28.05.2015 y the 2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner wa er was dismissed from service, or in .2024 or in the resolution dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P ure P-16), whereby the petitioner’s a ed by er’s appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate pellate Authority. The record does no oes not disclose any prejudice having been caused aused to the petitioner in the conduct dings, nduct of the disciplinary proceedings, and it is ev is evident that the prescribed pro ntially d procedure has been substantially complied wit ed with. Furthermore, there is no viola atural o violation of the principles of natural justice. Conse . Consequently, the present writ petitio petition stands dismissed.

16. Pending miscellaneous applica pplications, if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. ary 02, 2026 February 0 P.C/Vishnu RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document