Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sadhana Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
1 WP-3442-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3442 of 2019
SMT. SADHANA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“7.1 That, order annexure P/1 dated 19.08.2016 and annexure P/2
dated 17.01.2017 may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, order relief doing justice including cost be ordered.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his relief only to quash
the order dated 19.08.2016 by which minor punishment of with holding one
increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He
submitted that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as
Assistant Teacher and vide order dated 01.06.2016 show cause notice has
been issued alleging the certain misconduct upon the petitioner and
thereafter, petitioner has submitted his detailed reply dated 28.07.2016.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without considering the reply to
the show cause notice by non-speaking and reasoned order, the punishment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
2 WP-3442-2019
of with holding the one increment has been imposed upon the petitioner. It is
submitted that petitioner has already denied the charges in front of the
complainant. It is further submitted that once the petitioner has denied the
charges, then the minor punishment cannot be awarded without holding the
regular departmental inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
upon the order dated 29.8.2025 passed in W.P. No.3495/2012 (Maniram Shar ma
v. M.P.M.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & others).
3 . Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that
petitioner, against the impugned order, has an alternative remedy to submit appeal
before Appellate Authority as per provisions contained under M.P. Civil Services
Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules 1966.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 . As the impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned order and
without considering the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply, impugned
order has been passed.
6 . Considering the above, objection raised by learned counsel for the
respondents/State regarding alternative remedy is not tenable.
7 . The Division Bench of this High Court, Bench at Gwalior, in
WA.1736/2023 (Roop Singh Bhadoriya Versus Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra
Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. And Others), passed the order dated 08.01.2025,
whereby the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year without
cumulative effect as inflicted upon the petitioner was set-aside and the matter was
remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental inquiry and
thereafter pass necessary orders. The relevant contents of order dated 08.01.2025
are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
3 WP-3442-2019
“8. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in specific terms had
observed that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide,
for reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or
not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide
the matter summarily the employee can always challenge the minor
punishment imposed on the ground that the decision not to hold a
inquiry was an arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal
will in exercise of power of judicial review has to examine whether the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was
arbitrary or not. Further, if the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision
was arbitrary then such decision not to hold an enquiry and the
consequential imposition of punishment will be quashed. Thus, it is
imperative and as has been held by learned Single Judge that the
discretion which is vested in the authority is to be exercised
reasonably and objectively and it should not be guided by
arbitrariness, it was required for the disciplinary authority to have
recorded reasons for not conducting regular inquiry but from bare
perusal of the order dated 21.04.2011 (Annexure P/1), it would be
evident that no such satisfaction has been recorded as to why
departmental inquiry was not required to be held.
9. Learned Single Judge has also gone into the aspect that since the
petitioner was inflicted with minor penalty of stoppage of annual
increment for one year without cumulative effect, therefore, he would
receive the benefit of grant of increment after the period of one year is
over, therefore, no adversity would have caused in the pensionary
benefits in the matter also does not appears to be correct proposition as
definitely, due to stoppage of annual increment for one year, the
petitioner would not only suffer less payment for the rest of the service
period less by one increment till his retirement but would also in
proportionate would receive lesser payment of retiral benefits
including gratuity, pension, etc. Similarly, he will be also losing
proportionate amount in the contribution to provident fund, thus,
financial loss would be caused to the appellant, therefore, in that
event, when the appellant had denied the allegations levelled against
him in the show cause notice, the department ought to have conducted
the departmental inquiry. Thus, in the aforesaid context, the order
dated 08.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.7788/2011 by learned Single
Judge does not appears to be in-conformity with the legal position and
the same is hereby set-aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 21.04.2011 whereby punishment of
stoppage of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect
was inflicted upon the petitioner is hereby set-aside. The matter is
remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental
inquiry and thereafter pass necessary orders.”
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Food Corporation of India Vs.
A. Prahalada Rao [(2001) 1 SCC 165], has held that, “holding of regular
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
4 WP-3442-2019
departmental enquiry is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority which
is to be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if it is misused or used
arbitrarily, it would be subject to judicial review. In the case at hand, no material
has been commended at to establish that the disciplinary authority, assigned any
reasons for not holding the departmental enquiry”.
9. Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and Anr.
Vs. C.P. Singh [2004 (2) MPJR 252] had an occasion to examine the issue as to
whether an inquiry can be dispensed with, in all cases where the penalty proposed
is recovery of pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders
categorized as minor penalty? Their lordships taking note of decisions in C.R.
Warrier Vs. State of Kerala (1983 (1) SLR 608), V. Srinivasa Rao Vs.
Shyamsunder (ILR 1989 Ker. 3455); G. Sundaram Vs. General Manager,
Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank (ILR 1998 Kar. 4005); O.K. Bhardwaj Vs.
Union of India and others [(2001) 9 SCC 180] and Food Corporation of India Vs.
A. Prahalada Rao [(2001) 1 SCC 165] were pleased to observe:
“16. The position as can be gathered from the Rules and the aforesaid
decisions can be summarised thus:
(i) In a summary inquiry, a show cause notice is issued
informing the employee about the proposal to take
disciplinary action against him and of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour on which such action is
proposed to be taken. The employee is given an
opportunity of making a representation against the
proposal. The Disciplinary Authority considers the records
and the representation and records of findings on each of
the imputations of misconduct.
(ii) In a regular inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority draws
up the articles of charge and it is served on the employee
with a statement of imputation of misconduct, list of
witnesses and list of documents relied on by the
Department. The Disciplinary Authority calls upon the
employee to submit his defence in writing. On considering
the defence; the Disciplinary Authority considers the sameSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:78315 WP-3442-2019
and decides whether the inquiry should be proceeded with,
or the charges are to be dropped. If he decides to proceed
with the enquiry, normally an Inquiring Authority is
appointed unless he decides to hold the inquiry himself. A
Presenting Officer is appointed to present the case. The
employee is permitted to take the assistance of a
coemployee or others as provided in the rules. An inquiry is
held where the evidence is recorded in the presence of the
employee. The employee is permitted to inspect the
documents relied upon by the employer. The employee is
also permitted to call for other documents in the possession
of the Management which are in his favour. The delinquent
employee is given an opportunity to rebut the evidence of
the management by cross-examining the management
witnesses and by producing his evidence both documentary
and oral. Arguments-written and/or oral-are received/heard.
The delinquent employee is given full opportunity to put
forth his case. Therefore, the Inquiring Authority submits
his report. The copy of the report is furnished to the
employee and his representation is received. Thereafter the
Disciplinary Authority considers all the material and passes
appropriate orders. The detailed procedure for such
inquiries is contained in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of
the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968
corresponding to sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the
Central’ Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and M.R Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1966.
(iii) The normal rule, except where the employee admits
guilt, is to hold a regular inquiry. But where the penalty
proposed is a ‘minor penalty’, then the Rules give the
Disciplinary Authority a discretion to dispense with a
regular inquiry for reasons to be recorded by him, and hold
only a summary enquiry.
(iv) Though the Rules contemplate imposing a minor
penalty without holding a regular enquiry, where the
Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is
not necessary, such decision not to hold an enquiry can be
only for valid reasons, recorded in writing. Dispensation
with a regular enquiry where minor penalty is proposed,
should be in cases which do not in the very nature of things
require an enquiry, for example, (a) cases of unauthorised
absence where absence is admitted but some explanation is
given for the absence; (b) non-compliance with or breach of
lawful orders of official superiors where such breach is
admitted but it is contended that it is not wilful breach; (c)
where the nature of charge is so simple that it can easily be
inferred from undisputed or admitted documents; or (d)
where it is not practicable to hold a regular enquiry.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
6 WP-3442-2019
(v) But, even where the penalty proposed is categorised as
minor penalty, if the penalty involves withholding
increments of pay which is likely to affect adversely the
amount of pension (or special contribution to provident
fund payable to the employee), or withholding increments
of pay for a period exceeding three year or withholding
increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period,
then it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold
a regular inquiry.
(vi) Position before decision in FCI : Where the charges are
factual and the charges are denied by the employee or when
the employee requests for an inquiry or an opportunity to
put forth the case, the discretion of the Disciplinary
Authority is virtually taken away and it is imperative to
hold a regular inquiry.
Position after decision in FCI : Where the Rules give a
discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to either hold a
summary enquiry or regular enquiry, it is not possible to
say that the Disciplinary Authority should direct only a
regular enquiry, when an employee denies the charge or
requests for an inquiry. Even in such cases, the Disciplinary
Authority has the discretion to decide, for reasons to be
recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or not.
If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to
decide the matter summarily, the employee can always
challenge the minor punishment imposed, on the ground
that the decision not to hold a regular enquiry was an
arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal will
in exercise of power of judicial review, examine whether
the decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an
enquiry was arbitrary. If the Court/Tribunal holds that the
decision was arbitrary, then such decision not to hold an
enquiry and the consequential imposition of punishment
will be quashed. If the Court/Tribunal holds that the
decision was not arbitrary, then the imposition of minor
penalty will stand.
17. It is also possible to read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI
harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as stating a general principle,
without reference to any specific rules, that it is incumbent upon the
Disciplinary Authority to hold a regular enquiry, even for imposing a
minor penalty, if the charge is factual and the charge is denied by the
employee. On the other hand, the decision in FCI holding that the
Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to dispense with a regular
enquiry, even where the charge is factual and the employee denies the
charge, is with reference to the specific provisions of a Rule vesting
such discretion.
18. There is yet another aspect which requires to be noticed. Where the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
7 WP-3442-2019
penalty to be imposed though termed as minor, is likely to materially
affect the employee either financially or career-wise then it is not
possible to dispense with a regular enquiry. In fact, this is evident
from sub-rule (2) of Rule-11 which says that where the penalty to be
imposed, though termed as minor penalty, involves withholding of
increments which is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension or
special contribution to provident fund, or withholding of increments of
pay for a period exceeding three years or withholding of increments of
pay with cumulative effect, then an enquiry as contemplated under
Rule-9 (6) to (25) is a must. Thus, categorisation of penalties into
‘major’ and ‘minor’ penalties, by itself may not really be determinative
of the question whether a regular enquiry is required or not.
19. While ‘censure’ and withholding of increments of pay for specified
period may conveniently be termed as minor punishments, we feel
very uncomfortable with ‘recovery of pecuniary loss, for negligence or
breach of ‘orders’ without stipulating a ceiling, being considered as a
‘minor penalty’. ‘Recovering small amounts, as reimbursement of loss
caused to the employer byway of negligence or breach of orders from
the pay of the employee can be a minor penalty. But can recovery of
huge amounts running into thousands and lakhs, by way of loss
sustained on account of negligence or breach of orders, be called as a
minor penalty ? For example, in this case, recovery sought to be made
from the petitioner is Rs. 75,525/- determined as being 50% of the
total value of 74 rail posts. Theoretically, what would be the position if
the loss was 740 or 7400 rail posts.? Does it mean that recovery of Rs.
7.5 lakhs or Rs. 75 lakhs can be ordered from the Government servant,
still terming it as a minor penalty, without holding any enquiry ? It is
time that the State and authorities take a second look as what is termed
as ‘minor penalty’ with reference to recovery of losses. The recovery
of pecuniary loss on account of negligence or breach of order though
termed as a minor penalty may have disastrous consequences,
affecting the livelihood of the employee, if the amount sought to be
recovered is huge.
20. In the absence of any ceiling as to the pecuniary loss that can be
recovered by treating it as minor penalty, it is necessary to find out
whether there is any indication of the limit of amount that can be
recovered without enquiry, by applying the procedure for imposition
of minor penalties. We get some indication of the pecuniary limit in
Rule-11 (2) which provides that if the minor penalty involves
withholding of increments of pay for a period exceeding three years
then a regular enquiry is necessary. Thus, we can safely assume that
the pecuniary loss proposed to be recovered exceeds the monetary
equivalent of increments for a period of three years, then a regular
enquiry has to be held.
21. The fastening of pecuniary liability on the basis of negligence or
breach of orders, involves decision on four relevant aspects:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
8 WP-3442-2019
(a) What was the duty of the employee?
(b) Whether there was any negligence or breach of order on
the part of the employee while performing such duties?
(c) Whether the negligence or breach of order has resulted
in any financial loss to the employer?
(d) What is the quantum of pecuniary loss and whether the
pecuniary loss claimed include any remote damage and
whether the employer has taken steps to mitigate the loss?
These are not matters that could be decided without
evidence, and without giving an opportunity to the
employee to let in evidence. Therefore, where the charge of
negligence or breach of lawful order is denied, a regular
enquiry is absolutely necessary before fastening financial
liability on the employee, by way of punishment of
recovery of pecuniary loss from the employees. However,
having regard to the decision in FCI, regular inquiry can be
dispensed with, for valid reasons, if the amount to be
recovered is small (which in the absence of a specific
provision, does not exceed the equivalent of three years
increment at the time of imposition of penalty). Any
attempt to fasten any higher monetary liability on an
employee without a regular enquiry, by terming it as a
minor penalty, would be a travesty of justice.”
10. The careful reading of these decisions and applying the principle of law
in the facts of present case, leaves no iota of doubt that in the case at hand the
disciplinary authority acted arbitrarily in dispensing from holding a regular
departmental enquiry for no recorded reasons. Or even if there were reasons, the
same were not communicated.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh Bhadoriya
Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd and others (WA
No.1736 of 2023) vide order dated 08.01.2025 has held as under:
“8. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in specific terms had
observed that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide,
for reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or
not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide
the matter summarily the employee can always challenge the minorSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:78319 WP-3442-2019
punishment imposed on the ground that the decision not to hold a
inquiry was an arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal
will in exercise of power of judicial review has to examine whether the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was
arbitrary or not. Further, if the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision
was arbitrary then such decision not to hold an enquiry and the
consequential imposition of punishment will be quashed. Thus, it is
imperative and as has been held by learned Single Judge that the
discretion which is vested in the authority is to be exercised
reasonably and objectively and it should not be guided by
arbitrariness, it was required for the disciplinary authority to have
recorded reasons for not conducting regular inquiry but from bare
perusal of the order dated 21.04.2011 (Annexure P/1), it would be
evident that no such satisfaction has been recorded as to why
departmental inquiry was not required to be held.”
12. The core issue is whether in the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was
necessary to conduct the enquiry. Disciplinary authority opined that since the
allegations are based on documentary evidence, there is no need to conduct a
departmental enquiry. In the opinion of this Court, the point involve in this
matter is no more res integra. The curtains are finally drawn by the Apex
Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra). In the said case, the Apex Court
opined as under :-
“Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be
given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his
explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if
the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent
employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the
minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the
said requirement cannot be dispensed with.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In view of judgment of O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra) , it is clear that
when allegations are factual in nature and are denied by the delinquent
employee, enquiry needs to conducted in order to fulfill the requirement of
principle of natural justice. As noticed, in the present case, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
10 WP-3442-2019
specifically denied the allegation of the charge sheet and put forth his
defence on the basis of factual assertions. In our view, the petitioner had a
valuable right as per principle of natural justice to put forth his defence by
leading evidence in the enquiry. If enquiry would have been conducted, the
petitioner would have been in a position to lead the evidence to establish that
the delay was neither deliberate nor amount to misconduct. In such case,
department also would have been in a position to lead the evidence to
establish the charges.
1 4 . As analyzed above, in our view, the disciplinary authority has
missed the real point. Since facutal allegations were denied and petitioner
gave explanation on facts and merits, in the fitness of things, the disciplinary
authority should have conducted an enquiry as per Rule 16(1)(b) of CCA
Rules. This would have been in consonance with the principle of natural
justice. Apart from this, the discretion vested with the disciplinary authority
to conduct an enquiry must be exercised in objective and judicious manner.
The disciplinary authority in the present case has committed an error in not
instituting the enquiry as per rules. Thus, we find flaw in the decision making
process adopted by the department.
15. From perusal of the punishment order dated 19.08.2016, it is clear
that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing an order rejecting appeal of a
Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-
judicial orders must be speaking orders. The authority must apply its mind to
the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or
grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the punishment order, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
11 WP-3442-2019
does not appear to be a speaking one, which reads as under:-
” करण प का के अवलोकन से प है क संबंिधत क डयूट कूल चल हम िभयान-
2016 थम चरण के अ तगत येक प रवार (हाउस हो ड) से स पक कर सम
िश ा पोटल से ा सूची का स यापन/अ तनीकरण हे तु लगाई गई थी। उ आदे श
व ालय के धाना यापक के मा यम से दनांक 03.05.2016 को तामील हुआ था।
प है क ीमती साधना शमा ारा प लेने से बचने का यास कया गया था
जससे शासन क मह वपूण एवं समय सीमा म पूण क जाने वाली गित विध वािधत
हई है । उनके ारा तुत उ र संतोषजनक नह है ।
अतः म० ० िस वल सेवा (वग करण, िनय ंण तथा अपील) िनयम, 1966 के िनयम
10(4) के तहत एक वेतन वृ असंचयी भाव से रोक जाकर ीमती साधना शमा को
पूव पदां कत सं था क या मा० व० 01 गुना वकासख ड गुना म यथादत ् पद थ
कया जाता है ।
िनलंबन अविध सभी उ े यो के िलये कत य पर यतीत अविध मा य क जावेगी ।
िनलंबन अविध म िनवाह भ े के अित र कोई अ य रािश दे य नह होगी ।”
16. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised
with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the
necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its
decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial
authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties
must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
17. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is
relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature
must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the
reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
12 WP-3442-2019
conclusion.
18. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced
decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
“7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun
v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382.
However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not
have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot
take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision
must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of
this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N
Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair
Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517″ 31.
19. Also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others
cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial
authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties,
must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph
47 the Honb’le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-
paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7831
13 WP-3442-2019
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned
decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the
soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice
delivery system.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v.
Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University
of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred
to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,”adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 19.08.2018 is hereby quashed. The
respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
However, the respondents would be at liberty to take action against petitioner in
accordance with law, if so advised.
21. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of .
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Rashid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 3/9/2026
10:42:36 AM