9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge against reversion from Police Inspector to Sub-Inspector violating Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. 2. Dismissal of Writ Petition in limine without proper consideration by the High Court. 3. Lack of reasoned orders by High Courts in dismissing petitions under Art. 226 or 227 summarily. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition challenging his reversion from Offg. Police Inspector to Sub-Inspector, claiming it violated Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The reversion was based on adverse Annual Confidential Reports for 1982 and 1983, alleging the petitioner was unfit for service due to heavy drinking and being physically unfit. The petitioner contended the adverse remarks were baseless and made a detailed representation against the reversion, which was dismissed by the High Court without proper consideration. The Supreme Court refrained from deciding if the reversion was punitive but criticized the High Court's summary dismissal, stating it should have entertained the arguable question raised by the petitioner. 2. The High Court's dismissal of the Writ Petition in limine was criticized by the Supreme Court for lacking proper reasoning and consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts have a duty to pass reasoned orders, especially when substantial questions are raised in Writ Petitions. The Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing tendency of High Courts to dismiss petitions summarily without providing adequate justification, urging for brief statements of reasons to facilitate a quick and satisfactory disposal of cases. In this case, the Supreme Court granted special leave, set aside the High Court's order of summary dismissal, and directed the High Court to admit the Writ Petition for proper consideration. 3. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of High Courts providing brief statements of reasons when dismissing petitions summarily under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Emphasizing the need for disciplined judicial processes, the Supreme Court urged High Courts to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court and provide concise reasoning even in summary dismissals. The lack of brief statements of reasons hinders the understanding of decisions and complicates the review process. The Supreme Court granted costs to the petitioner and stressed the significance of reasoned orders in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.
|
