AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and A.K. Yog, JJ.—Heard, counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was a Secretary of a Co-operative Society. He was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry, he was found guilty and his service was terminated, vide order dated 28th September. 1999. He filed an appeal against the termination order, which has been dismissed. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.
A perusal of the appellate order dated 15th January, 2000, copy of which is Annexure-CA 14 to counter-affidavit, shows that the appellate authority has not recorded any reasons for upholding the order of the original authority. The appellate authority has merely recorded the facts and thereafter given its conclusion. There is a distinction between reasons and conclusion. The earlier view of the Supreme Court was that an order of affirmance need not give reasons, vide Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others (UOI), , but subsequently the Supreme Court changed its view and held that an order of affirmance too must give reasons, vide Bharat Raja Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, , Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), and C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others,
No doubt, the appellate authority need not go into details and give a detailed judgment like that of a Court of law, but it must give at least in brief its reasons showing application of mind. Since that has not been done, we set aside the appellate authority''s order dated 15th January. 2000 and remand the matter to the original authority to pass a fresh order expeditiously giving reasons and after hearing the petitioner In accordance with law.
We make tt clear that we are not setting aside the order of the original authority dated 28th September. 1999, but only of the appellate authority. Also, we make it clear that we have allowed the petition only on one point, and we are not dealing with the other points raised In this petition.
Petition allowed.