Petitioner challenged a non-speaking order treating a period between dismissal and reinstatement as 'dies non'. The court quashed the order for lack of reasons and remanded the matter for a speaking order.
Order dated 20.3.2007 quashed; case remitted to reconsider representation and pass a speaking order within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13625 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.3.2009
Surinder Kumar
---Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
---Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.
Present:Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)
The petitioner was earlier dismissed from service w.e.f 1.4.1981. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Civil Court. However, the petitioner lost the battle all along. The petitioner thereafter filed a mercy appeal before the Chief Minister of the State. On consideration of the said mercy appeal, the order of dismissal was recalled and the punishment of dismissal was converted into stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and petitioner was ordered to be reinstated vide order dated 3.11.2003 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice Department and simultaneously the period from the date of dismissal to reinstatement was ordered to be treated as “dies non”. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.11.2003 to the extent the above mentioned period, has been treated as “dies non”. The petitioner, thereafter made a representation against the aforesaid stipulation. The representation of the petitioner is rejected vide communication dated 20.3.2007 (Annexure
CWP No. 13625 of 2008
-2-
P-15). The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition challenging the condition treating the period of alleged absence as “dies non” and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the representation of the petitioner by a non-speaking order.
I have perused the impugned order. The respondents while rejecting the representation of the petitioner have not recorded any reason whatsoever, though, an attempt is made to substantiate the reasons in the reply. It is settled law that the adverse order must contain reasons.
Ms. Tuli has brought to my notice another order dated 9.8.2008 (Annexure R-2) passed by the D.G.P, whereby the order dated 5.11.2003 (Annexure P-8) has been reiterated.
The fact remains that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the stipulation treating the period from dismissal to the date of re-joining as “dies non” no reasons have been recorded. It is totally a non-speaking order. The impugned order (Annexure P-15) is thus not sustainable. Without going into the merits, this petition is disposed of in the following manners:-
(2) The case is remitted back to the authority, who has passed the order (Annexure P-15) to reconsider the representation and pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority.
Ms. Tuli submits that a committee has been constituted by the Govt. to deal with such cases. It is for the Govt. to consider whether this case is also to be dealt with the same committee or any other competent authority. However, the entire exercise shall be completed within the time
CWP No. 13625 of 2008 -3-
stipulated herein above. Petitioner shall have the liberty of represent to the competent authority/committee for personal hearing and the said competent authority/committee shall consider the request of the petitioner for personal hearing accordingly.
Disposed of as such.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
23.3.2009 lucky
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an administrative order rejecting a representation without recording reasons is sustainable.
Whether a non-speaking order can be used to treat a period of service as 'dies non' after dismissal and reinstatement.
Surinder Kumar
State of Punjab
PERMOD KOHLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
