AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsels heard.
With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner came to this court earlier also. Against his super session, he preferred an appeal. That was not decided by passing a speaking
order. A direction was given to the Appellate authority to pass a speaking order. This direction is contained in writ petition, SWP 128/82, decided
on 23.02.1989. When the matter was again taken up in Appeal, order Annexure P.6 was passed.
This reads as under:
... I am directed to refer your letter no. PHQ 40/79/15095 dt. 27.4.1989 regarding the above noted subject and to say that from the perusal of
the letter under reference it reveals that the applicant is not interested in his appeal. Keeping in view the remarks forwarded by the PHQ on his
appeal, there seems no weight in his appeal. Besides he has obtained a copy of Order NO. 201 DATE. 29.03.1982 on 03.07.1982 i.e, after
lapse of 4 years. On technical grounds also the appeal attracts rejection.
A perusal of the aforementioned order indicates that this is again a nonspeaking order. The requirement to pass a speaking order has been high
lightened by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1967 SC1606 'Bhagat Raja Vs Union of India and Ors.' The necessity to
give personal hearing was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case reported as AIR 1986 SC 1173 ""Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and
Ors"". The observations made by the Supreme Court are as under:
....It is of utmost importance after the forty second Amendment as interpreted by the majority in Tulsiram patel's case that the Appellate Authority
must not only give a hearing to the Government servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the
appeal...
Therefore, the officer, who passed the order Annexure P.6, would reexamine the entire matter and pass a fresh order which would be speaking
in nature. Let this fresh order be passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let this exercise be completed with a period of six
months. The period of six months would be from the date, the copy of the order passed by this court is made available to the concerned authority
by the petitioner.
This petition is disposed of accordingly in the manner indicated above.