Balvir Singh v. State of U.P & Anr.

While awarding censure entry to the petitioner, absolutely no reason has been assigned by the respondents to discard petitioner's explanation. Issuing of show cause notice is admitted. Except to hold that explanation is not satisfactory, no other justification is disclosed in the order, nor reasons have been indicated to discard petitioner's claim. In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.23290 of 2017 has been pleased to pass following orders on 24.5.2017:- "By the impugned order, the petitioner has been found guilty and he has been awarded a censure entry in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and it does not disclose any reason, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted detailed representation on 28.04.2016. The authority concerned without adverting to his reply has rejected it by single order that his reply was found "Asantoshjanak" (Unsatisfactory). He submits that no reason has been assigned in the matter, hence, the order is arbitrary. 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