U.P.S.R.TC.versusJAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

                                    [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1153


    ~                                   U.P.S.R.TC.                              A
                                              V.
                               JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA
                              Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2009
                                     MARCH 25, 2009
                                                                                 B
                      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                                   GANGULY, JJ.]
        ..
                     Judgment/Order: Non-reasoned order- Dismissal of writ
               petition without indicating reasons - Propriety of - Held: Not
               proper- On plainest consideration of justice, High Court ought    c
               to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order
               indicative of application of its mind, all the more when its order
               was amenable to further avenue of challenge - Absence of
               reasons rendered High Court's judgment not sustainable -
              ·Supreme Court has extraordinary power under Article 136 and D
               can reject appeals at SLP stage invariably without assigning
               reasons and analogy cannot be made with such powers while
               dealing with. writ petition- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
               136, 122.
                                                                                  E
                     Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Scope of.
                    The respondent-workman was found guilty of
.             charges levelled and was removed from service. Labour
              court directed re-instatement with 50% back wages. The
              writ petition was filed which was dismissed summarily by F
              High Court after issuance of notice to the respondent who
              filed his reply.
                   In the instant appeal, stand of the appellant was that
              the order of High Court was non-reasoned .
         ..                                                                     G
                  Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
              High Court, the Court
                   HELD: 1.1. The High Court initially issued notice and
              reply was filed by the respondent. After that High Court
                                            1153                                 H
    1154      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 4 S.C. R.


A dismissed the writ petition in a summary manner. It cannot
  be said that the various aspects highlighted by the
  appellant were without any substance. The effect of it was
  to be enquired in the writ petition which apparently was
  not done. No reason was indicated. The dismissal of the
B writ petition in such summary manner without indicating
  any reason was clearly indefensible. [Paras 6,7] [1157-B-D]
         1.2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
    consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set
    forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative
c   of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is
    amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of
    reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not
    sustainable. [Para 8] [1157-E]
           Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All
D
    E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
    (1974) LCR 120; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5
    sec 568 - referred to.
         2. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of
E   this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
    1950 and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage
    invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be
    exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning
    and is illogical. First of all, High Court is not the final court
    in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge
F   before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there
    is no scope for any further appeal from the order made
    declining to grant special leave to appeal. Article 136 of
    the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in
    favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every        ~
G   error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers
    under Article 136. The powers of this Court under Article
    136 are special and extraordinary and the main object is
    to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice.
    That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition.
H   [Para 11] [1159-A-D]
                    U.P.S.R.TC. V. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA              1155


              Dr Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of UP & Ors. (2008) 3 A
         sec 172 - relied on.
                             Case Law Reference

              (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148    referred to        Para 9
                                                                             B
              (1974) LCR 120            referred to        Para 9

              (2004 (5) sec 568         referred to        Para 10

              (2008) 3 sec 112
..   •                                  relied on          Para 12

              CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1883             c
         of 2009

              From the Judgement and Order dated 09.11.2005 of the
         Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Civil Misc.
         Writ Petition No. 52959 of 2005.
                                                                             D
              Anuvrat Sharma, for the Appellants.

             Rachna Srivastava, Mohd. Noorullah, Himani J., for the
         Respondents.

              The Judgement of the Court was delivered by                    E
              DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

              1. Leave granted.

               2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
         learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing         F
         the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the writ
         petition was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
         Court, _Gorakhpur.

               3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as
                                                                             G
         follows:
               Respondent was posted as Booking Clerk at Gorakhpur
         Station. He was found involved in serious acts of misconduct,
         not taking interest in the job, carelessness in performance and
         usually coming late to office and remaining absent and not H
    1156        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   complying with orders. In this regard several letters were written
    by the senior Foreman directing the respondent to improve his
    conduct and warning him that unless he improved himself,
    necessary orders shall be passed. He was asked to make
    certain clarifications by letter dated 24.4.1980 to which he did
B   not submit a reply. He was suspended from service on
    26. 7 .1980 and was asked to place his defence. Since his reply
    was found not satisfactory, a decision was taken to conduct an
    enquiry on 30.8.1980. A charge sheet was issued to him and
    he was asked to furnish reply in respect of the following charges:
c          1.   for not maintaining vehicle wise register as per rules
                and not making up to date entries in the same.

           2.   For not taking interest in work, carelessness in
                performance and not producing the requisite
D               clarifications when asked to do so by superiors.\
           3.   For marking his presence on the attendance register
                on a day when he remained absent and
           4.   Willfully causing disappearance of departmental
E               records.
        A departmental enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry
  officer after concluding the same submitted the enquiry report.
  During enquiry the charges leveled against the respondent were
  found to be proved and as such he was removed from service
F by order dated 30. 7.1988. Respondent filed an application in
  2002 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur
  which was listed as Adjudication Case No.25 of2002. In course
  of examination by the Labour Court on 28.1.2004, respondent
  admitted that certain entries in register entered by him could
G not be made. The Labour Court directed re-instatement with
  50% backwages. The writ petition was filed which was
  dismissed summarily after issuance of notice to the respondent
  who filed his reply.
H          4. The basic stand of the appellant is that the order is non-
                U.P.S.RTC. V. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA              1157
                        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)

     reasoned and the High Court had not even considered the A
     various stands highlighted by the appellant.
         5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
     supported the order of the High Court.
          6. It appears that the High Court had initially issued notice B
     and reply was filed by the respondent. After that the High Court
     has dismissed the writ petition in a summary manner. It cannot
     be said that the various aspects highlighted by the appellant
     were without any substance. What would have the effect of it
     was to be enquired in the writ petition which apparently has not   c
     been done. The order reads as follows:

          "Impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity
          warranting interference by this Court. Consequently writ
          petition is dismissed."
                                                                        D
          7. As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that
     practically no reason was indicated, the dismissal of the writ
     petition in such summary manner without indicating any reason
     is clearly indefensible.
          8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest E
     consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
     its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
     application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable
     to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has
     rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.                F
          9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
     M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
     All E.R. _1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
     fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
     (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: G
     "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons
     are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
     controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
     at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
     on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the H
-'
    1158      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it
    virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate
    function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
    the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable
    part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
B   indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.
    Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
    decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements
    of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in
    other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx"
c   is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
    performance.
        10. This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004
  (5)  sec  568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the
  earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the
D necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons
  in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgmenUorder
  and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose
  the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been
  always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound
E administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there
  had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before
  the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of           •
  natural justice. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised
  and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the courUforum
F to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license
  to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be
  conveyed by the well-known saying: "varying according to the
  Chancellor's foot". Arbitrariness has been always held to be
  the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so
G when such orders are amenable to challenge further before
  higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary
  disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be
  a proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim
  before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an
H essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter
                U.P.S.RTC. V. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA                  1159
                        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

    before courts, and which is the only indication to know about           A
    the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact
    that the court concerned had really applied its mind. ·
          11. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this
    Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in
                                                                             8
    short the 'Constitution') and the practice of rejecting appeals at
    the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one
    to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning
    and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in
    the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before
    this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for C
    any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special
    leave to appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated
    that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of
    appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and
    every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers D
    under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this
    Court under Article 136 of ,the Constitution are special and
    extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has
    been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the
    same with a writ petition.                                               E
        12. The above position is highlighted in Dr. Vishnu Dev
    Sharma v. State of U. P & Ors. [2008(3) SCC 172].
          13. In the circumstances the impugned order of the High
    Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is          F
    remitted to the High Court to hear the Civil Misc. Writ Petition
    No. 52959 of 2005 to be disposed of by a reasoned order. There
    shall be no order as to costs.
           14. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    D.G.                                          Appeal disposed of.




•
1