‘Reasons are heartbeat of every order’: HC quashes cop’s dismissal for lack of speaking order

“Reasons are the heartbeat of every order passed not only by judicial or quasi-judicial, but also administrative authority,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. The assertion came as a division bench ruled that a government employee convicted of a crime could not simply be sacked without a reasoned order showing why dismissal was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel also set aside the 2002 dismissal order passed against a Punjab Police official convicted for subjecting a married woman to cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. The court found the service-dismissal order to be unsustainable as it failed to record reasons or show application of mind to the officer’s reply or to the question of punishment quantum.

Appearing before the bench, advocate Manu K Bhandari submitted that the appellant-official was removed from service with immediate effect vide order dated November 6, 2002, passed by the DGP under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules following his conviction by a trial court.

“This court is of the considered view that the only illegality reflected in the order dated November 6, 2002, is that the same is not a speaking order, wherein the competent/disciplinary authority has not disclosed its mind…,” the bench asserted, after hearing counsel for the rival parties.

Referring to the minimum requirements before imposing major penalty against an employee, the court asserted the least that was expected of a disciplinary authority was to disclose that an inquiry was conducted – not a full-scale inquiry, but one which satisfied the fundamental concept of reasonable opportunity.

Setting aside the dismissal order, the court asserted it deemed it appropriate to set aside the order of removal from service only on the ground that the competent/disciplinary authority had not passed a speaking order.

The bench clarified that the question of reinstatement did not arise since the appellant has retired. But the competent authority would be at liberty to re-consider the matter after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant and thereafter pass a speaking order.

“This court refrains from passing any order as regards the consequential benefits which may flow out of this order since the entitlement or otherwise of the same shall depend upon the order that is passed by the competent authority while executing this order,” the bench added.