Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) PETITIONER came to this Court contending that in view of arbitrariness in annual confidential report in respect of the petitioner and his consequent supersession by his juniors, he submitted a statutory complaint under Section 26 of the Army Act. By letter dated 31 -8 -1990 at Annexure -2 to the writ petition the petitioner was informed that the said statutory complaint had been considered by the Chief of the Army Staff and rejected. Challenging the same this writ petition was filed. The respondents filed counter -affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoinder -affidavit.
(2.) AT the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the statutory complaint of the petitioner under Section 26 of the Army Act by one word order is illegal and it suffers from irregularity as no reason has been given in support of the decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Army authorities are entitled to dispose of statutory complaints with one word order only when the same are under Section 164(2) of the Army Act but such one word order under Section 25 of the said Act is not permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection in the case of Capt. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 1984, in support of the aforesaid contention. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the contentions made in the counter -affidavit in support of the decision of the respondents. Objection has also been taken by the respondents against entertaining the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under Section 27 of the Army Act. As the writ petition is pending from the year 1990 I do not refuse to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
(3.) UNDER Section 26 of the Army Act, 1950 complaint can be filed under various circumstances. In the present case the dispute relates to alleged arbitrariness in annual confidential reports of the petitioner. On a complaint by the petitioner such matter requires to be decided under Section 26 of the Army Act. As regards necessity of giving reasons by Administrative authorities the law referred to on behalf of the petitioner has been quoted from the judgment in the case of Capt. S.N. Mukherjee (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment runs as follows: Therefore, except in case where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi -judicial function is required to record the reasons for its decision. The recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi -judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Therefore, applying the aforesaid law, I am of the opinion that in deciding such matter on statutory complaints under Section 26 of the Army Act, the authority concerned should indicate reasons dealing with the contentions of the petitioner made in his statutory complaint. In view of the aforesaid finding, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21 -8 -1990 as communicated by letter dated 31 -8 -1990 at Annexure -2 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The appropriate authority will decide the statutory complaint in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.;