Partly allowed

Amar Singh v. Hrtc

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Dec 2010CWPOA/8750/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a consumer/complaint matter, the petitioner challenged the appellate authority's unreasoned order issued on May 31, 2002. The court held that the order was not speaking or reasoned, violating settled law. The order was quashed, and the case remitted to the appellate authority for a rehearing with reasoned adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A-5 dated 31st May, 2002 quashed and set aside. Appellate authority directed to decide appeal afresh within eight weeks.

Amar Singh Vs Hrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP(T) No.: 8750 of 2008.

¶3

Decided on: 07.12.2010.

¶4

Amar Singh. … Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. … Respondent.

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) :

¶11

Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure A-4, dated 4.4.2002, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority decided the same vide Annexure A-5, dated 31^st May, 2002. A bare perusal of Annexure A-5, dated 31^st May, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that the same is neither speaking nor detailed. It is settled law by now that the appellate authority must apply its mind after taking into consideration the contentions/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal and pass a speaking/reasoned order.

¶12

Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under:

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

¶14

¶15

“Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof”.

¶16

Consequently, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petition is allowed. Annexure A-5, dated 31^st May, 2002 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and also after taking into consideration the communication dated 23^rd February, 2002, within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The appellate authority shall also take into consideration the principles laid down in the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No.2882 of 2008 titled Darshan Singh versus H.R.T.C. He shall pass a speaking/reasoned order. The appellate authority shall also take into

¶17

¶18

consideration the fact that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and it will cause immense hardship, if he is ordered to re-pay the amount of Rs.46772/-. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.

¶20

December 07, 2010. (sck).

Amar Singh v. Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuvneshwari Vs Kahmpi Devi

Bishan Singh Vs Hpsfc

Dola Ram Vs Hpsfc

Bal Raj Singh Vs State

Mohan Lal Vs Kamla Devi

Prithvi Singh Vs State