2009 (3) TMI 972 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether High Court was correct to allow the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the orders of the appellate authority and disciplinary authority on the ground that the order of the appellate authority dated 4.9.2003 did not contain any reasons? Held that - The order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority. Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent that it has set aside the order of the disciplinary authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal filed by respondent No.1 afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to respondent No.1 and also by passing a speaking order.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of the order of the appellate authority lacking reasons.
- Requirement of reasons in an order of affirmation.
- Setting aside of the order of the disciplinary authority by the High Court.

Validity of the order of the appellate authority lacking reasons:
The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the judgment of the High Court quashing the order of the appellate authority dated 4.9.2003 due to the absence of reasons. The respondent had filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed on the grounds that the appellate authority's order lacked reasons. The appellant contended that an order of affirmation does not require elaborate reasons, citing a previous case. However, the Supreme Court held that even an order of affirmation must contain some reasons to show the application of mind by the appellate authority. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that reasons are essential to instill confidence in judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and to prevent arbitrariness. The Court concluded that the absence of reasons in the appellate authority's order indicated a lack of application of mind, necessitating the setting aside of the order.

Requirement of reasons in an order of affirmation:
The Supreme Court clarified that while an order of affirmation may not need detailed reasoning like an order of reversal, it still must include some reasons, at least in brief, to demonstrate that the appellate authority has applied its mind. The Court highlighted the importance of disclosing reasons to uphold the rule of law and ensure transparency in decision-making processes. By citing various precedents, the Court established that brief reasons are necessary even in orders of affirmation to prevent arbitrary dismissals of appeals without proper consideration. The Court underscored that the purpose of disclosing reasons is to enable individuals to understand the decision-making process and to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.

Setting aside of the order of the disciplinary authority by the High Court:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the High Court's judgment that quashed the order of the disciplinary authority. While agreeing with the High Court's stance on the necessity of reasons in the appellate authority's order, the Court disagreed with setting aside the disciplinary authority's order. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of affording the respondent an opportunity to be heard and issuing a speaking order. The Court directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision-making process and did not impose any costs in this regard.