Sri Krishna Singh Gosain vs State Bank of India & Ors.

In this petition the petitioner has claimed relief for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26th of May, 1992 (Annexure 13) by which the appeal of petitioner against his nonpromotion from Senior Manager Grade Scale III to IV has been rejected. The appeal of the petitioner was withregard to the period 181989 to 181990.

Mr. K. Ajit learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has assailed the order dated 22nd April, 1992 (Annexure A to the supplementary counteraffidavit II) which was communicated to the petitioner on 26th of May, 1992, essentially on the ground that the appellate order violates the principles of natural justice as no reasons have been assigned for dismissing the appeal.

Mr. S. N. Verma learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the Appellate Authority was not legally required to indicate reasons for nonpromotion of the petitioner. He has further submitted that it was an order of affirmance passed by the Appellate Authority agreeing with the view taken by the initial authority therefore on this count too the reasons were not required to be given. Learned Counsel, for the aforesaid propositions, placed reliance on Union of India and another v. Samar Singh and others, (1996) 10 SCC 555, Major General IPS. Dewan v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 383; M/S Fedco (P) Ltd. v. S.N. Bilgrami, AIR 1960 SC 415; and State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827.

We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Normally reasons arc not required to be given in cases of nonpromotion for the simple reason that the authority acting administratively may have not found such person fit for promotion on the basis of materials produced before him bona fide of which may be ascertained period. But where against such an order appeal is provided it cannot be said that the same principle will apply to the Appellate Authority also. The purpose of providing right of appeal is to remove the possibility of error and arbitrariness. To preserve and maintain the purpose for which the provision of appeal is made it becomes necessary for the Appellate Authority to record reasons in brief, which clinched the issue of promotion against the petitioner.

In our opinion the principle of affirmance of the order will also not apply in such cases as there was no reasoned order available on record passed by the initial authority. Further, very peculiar feature of this case is that the appellate order is in a printed form which decides 4 appeals each having different set of facts. The appellate order reads as under:

"The appeal(s) submitted by the undernoted official (s) has/have been duly considered by the Appellate Authority. Having regard to the circumstances, the Appellate Authority is of the view that there is no ground for revising the decision already taken in this/these case(s). Please advise the official(s) accordingly."

In our opinion such a printed order deciding 4 appeals cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it does not deal separately even with regard to the factual aspect of each case. Inference may be drawn that the mind was not applied to the facts of the case. Thus, the Appellate Authority has committed gross error in deciding the appeal of the petitioner therefore the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 22nd April, 1992 (AnnexureA to the supplementary counteraffidavit II) so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide petitioner''s appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above with in a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.