Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is an Ex -Warder and was on duty in the Sub Jail, Pathankot, challenges the order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P -1) passed by respondent no. 3 whereby, he has been dismissed from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Challenge has also been raised to the order dated 23.04.2014 (Annexure P -6) whereby, his appeal has been dismissed by respondent no. 2. The reasons which weighed with respondent no. 3, which are apparently in conflict with each other while passing the order of dismissal, are that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted by the Superintendent, Sub Jail and on the basis of his report, a recommendation had been made that he be dismissed from service. The alleged reasons were that one undertrial namely Amit Sharma had been incited and provoked to file a false complaint against the jail administration by the petitioner. The petitioner had also been held guilty of making phone calls to the relatives of the said undertrial for personal works and harass them. Apart from the said fact, it is alleged that he had put on a wrong batch of Head Warder during his duty and carried two stripes. The explanation had been called for and accordingly, the reply not being satisfactory, a finding was recorded that it was difficult for the department to prove the charges against such delinquent officials through a departmental inquiry and it would not be in government interest to keep such officials in the jail department. Resultantly, being the competent authority under the Punjab Jail Department State Services (Class -III Executive) Rules, 1963, finding the petitioner guilty, it was held that it would be not necessary to hold further inquiry and that it was not reasonable and practical to hold such inquiry. The petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by noting as under: - "This Ex -Warder Nirmal Singh No. 3320 appeared before me for personal hearing on 16.04.2014. During personal hearing this Ex -official only reiterated his submissions made in the appeal and apart from that, he could not furnish any satisfactory explanation, but only made a prayer that he may be reinstated in service and he will not repeat such mistake. After carefully considering the service record and the comments furnished by the punishing authority, it has been found that the orders of dismissal from service passed by the punishing authority are in accordance with rules and law. Therefore, this appeal is found to be without any merit and substance and is hereby dismissed."
(2.) This appellate order itself is liable to be set aside on the ground that no reasons have been given in support of the decision making process in spite of the fact that serious civil consequences are involved in the case of the petitioner who had been in service since 1989. It is settled principle that reasons in support of the order are to flow specially since the said respondent was exercising the power of a statutory appeal.
(3.) Reliance can be safely placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Harbhajan Singh Dhalla vs. Union of India, : AIR 1987 SC 9 wherein, it was held that while the observance of the principles of nature justice are required but there should be reasons which should support the decision even if it is an administrative order. The relevant paragraph reads as under: - "26. In this case there is no provision of any appeal from the order of the Central Government in either granting or refusing to grant sanction under Sec. 86 of the Code. This sanction or lack of sanction may, however, be questioned in the appropriate proceedings in court but inasmuch as there is no provision of appeal, it is necessary that there should be an objective evaluation and examination by the appropriate authority of relevant and material factors in exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 86 by the Central Government. There is an implicit requirement of observance of the principles of natural justice and also the implicit requirement that decision must be expressed in such a manner that reasons can be spelled out from such decision. Though this is an administrative order in a case of this nature, there should be reasons. If the administrative authorities are enjoined to decide the rights of the parties, it is essential that such administrative authority should accord fair and proper hearing to the person to be affected by the order and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons. Such reasons must be on relevant material factors objectively considered - There is no claim of any privilege that disclosure of reasons would undermine the political or national interest of the country.;