Partly allowed

Nemi Chand Gupta v. State Revenu Departmentors

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2016CW/11466/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the appellate authority's dismissing order was cryptic and non-speaking, violating settled law requiring reasons. The dismissal was set aside, and the matter remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh with reasons.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.05.2011 is set aside; the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh with reasons within three months.

Nemi Chand Gupta Vs State Revenu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11466/2014 Nemi Chand Gupta vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶4

Date of Order : 01.09.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶6

Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, counsel for petitioner.

¶7

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 24.02.2009 whereby his three annual grade increments have been withheld with cumulative effect and the order dated 30.05.2011 whereby his appeal thereagainst has been dismissed by the appellate authority.

¶8

The petitioner, who was working as Patwari, was chargesheeted alongwith 14 other employees under Section 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charges against the petitioner pertained to allotment of custodian land to five persons in connivance with the then Tehsildar, despite ban of the State Government. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges. The enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.02.2009, imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue vide order dated 30.05.2011.

¶9

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition.

¶11

There appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by a cryptic order without assigning any reason. It is manifest from the perusal of the order dated 30.05.2011 that no reason has been assigned while dismissing the appeal except stating that the disciplinary authority had rightly held the petitioner guilty after perusing the enquiry report. The appellate authority has neither referred to any ground raised in the appeal nor it has addressed the same while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

¶12

It is well settled that the appellate authority, even while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority, is required to give reasons in support of its order. The disclosure of reasons not only enables the party to learn as to why the decision has gone against it but it is also necessary to check the arbitrariness on the part of the administrative authorities. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 240], wherein it has been held that although an order of affirmation does not require elaborate reasons but it should contain reasons, at least, in brief.

¶13

¶14

Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the appellate authority being cryptic and non-speaking is patently unsustainable in law.

¶15

Consequently, the petition is partly allowed and the order of the appellate authority dated 30.05.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL), J.

¶17

Sanjay Gaur Jr.PA 21

Nemi Chand Gupta v. State Revenu Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemi Chand Gupta v. State Revenu Departmentors

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Dr Rajni Mehla

National Insurance Ltd. Vs Mahendra and Ors.

Kailash Chand Rao Vs M/S Abenejar Construction Comp

Mukesh Vs Hakim Singh and Others

Harbhajan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Pushpendra Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp