IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7140 of 2009 Between: C.V.Rama Baba S/o.Sri C.Kesavulu Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 S.Prabhakar Sarma S/o.S.Narahari Sarma HMWS & SB, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, represented by its Managing Director, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to O.A.No.4283/09 order dt. 26.3.2009 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO : 7121 of 2009 Between: The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Rep by its Managing Director, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 S. Prabhakar Sarma, s/o. Narahari Sarma, HMWS & SB., Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 C.V. Ramababa, HMWS & SB, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 26-3-2009 passed in OA No. 4283 of 2009 and quash the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (Per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) 1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission. 2. W.P.No.7140 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner-Sri.C.V.Rama Baba seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 26.3.2009 passed in O.A.No.4283 of 2009 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by virtue of which, the Tribunal has suspended promotion order of the petitioner passed vide proceedings No.MD/HMWSSB/2008- 09/2044/6585, dated 29.1.2009 from the post of Director (Personnel). 3. W.P.No.7121 of 2009 is filed by petitioner-Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board rep. by its Managing Director, Ameerpet, Hyderabad seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 26.3.2009 passed in O.A.No.4283 of 2009 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by virtue of which the Tribunal has suspended reversion order of 1st respondent-Sri.S.Prabhakar Sarma vide proceeding No.MD/HMWSSB/2008-09/2044/6586, dated 29.1.2009 from the post of Director (Engineering). 4. The impugned order of the Tribunal passed on 26.3.2009 reads as under: “ Pending disposal of the O.A. there shall be suspension of the impugned proceedings No.MD/ HMWSSB/2008- 09/2043/6586, dated 29.1.2009 and proceedings No. MD/ HMWSSB/2008-09/2044/6585, dated 29.1.2009 and the respondents are directed to continue the applicant as Director (Engineering).” 5. The writ petitioner-C.V.Rama Baba joined the service as a Junior Engineer (AEE now) in A.P. Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service on 21.9.1978 and was allotted to Zone-IV. He has been transferred to Hyderabad Water Works in June, 1979. He was promoted as Dy.Executive Engineer on 3.12.1986. As a Dy.Executive Engineer he was given posting in Hyderabad Water Works (in MDP Share posts). As on 1.11.1989 he was working as Dy.Executive Engineer in Project construction Division, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and was included in the panel of Dy.Executive Engineer fit for promotion as Executive Engineer for the year 1999-2000 and was promoted on that basis in May, 2000. He was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 2.4.2004 on the basis of the panel prepared therefor and further promoted as Director (Personnel) vide proceedings dated 29.1.2009. 6. Sri.S.Prabhakar Sharma-1st respondent-applicant joined the service of A.P. Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service as Deputy Executive Engineer in May, 1987. He was working in connection with HMWW as on 1.11.1989. However, he earned promotion as Executive Engineer in A.P. Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service in the year 2000. He was promoted as Executive Engineer on 31.5.2000 and further promoted as Superintending Engineer in December, 2004. He was promoted temporarily as Director (Engineering) on 24.4.2007 initially for a period of one year subject to finalization of seniority list. By proceedings dated 23.9.2008 his promotion was extended upto 23.4.2009. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Sri.M.Surender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Sri.C.Rama Baba vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in not passing a speaking and reasoned order while suspending the promotion proceedings of the petitioner-Sri.C.Rama Baba in as much as the matter was heard at length and the contentions were recorded. It is also contended that R1 was reverted on 29.1.2009 and whereas he filed the O.A. belatedly on 11.3.2009. It is contended that the petitioner has been functioning as Director (Personnel) from 29.1.2009 and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and that the Tribunal failed to see that the petitioner was absorbed into the services of the Board way back in the year 1992 which is evident from the proceedings dated 5.8.1992. He has drawn our attention to the judgments of Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C.E. v. PHIL CORPORATION LTD[1] and GOYAL ENTERPRISES V. STATE OF JHARKHAND[2]. In the first cited decision, it is stated that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless vide RAJ KISHORE JHA v. STATE OF BIHAR[3] and that in para 9 of the 1st cited judgment it is stated as under: “ 9. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning M.R. in BREEN V. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION (1971(1) ALL E.R. 1148, observed: “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In ALEXANDER MACHINERY (DUDLEY) LTD. v. CRABTREE (1974 ICR 120(NIRC) it was observed : “ Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 9. Sri.P.Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- S.Prabhakar Sarma contends that the petitioner kept quite for two years without making any challenge to the order of promotion of the 1st respondent-applicant and that merely because the 1st respondent- applicant proceeded on leave for four months, he cannot be reverted as Chief General Manager (E) and that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. It is further contended that in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly suspended the order of promotion of Sri.C.V.Rama Baba. 10. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel and the decisions referred by learned counsel for the petitioner- Sri.C.V.Rama Baba. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is laconic. The manner in which the O.A. has been dealt with by the Tribunal leaves much to be desired. The Tribunal ought to have set forth its reasons in support of its decision especially when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the Tribunal order not sustainable. Particularly the Tribunal should have adhered to the pleadings of the parties in so far as the promotion to the unofficial respondent before it in as much as the promotion to Sri.C.V.Rama Baba as Director (Personnel) was effected, whose post was sanctioned in the year 1984 and was absorbed into the Board service in the year 1992 and was shown in the department rolls. It is imperative on the part of the Tribunal that when once the learned counsel have advanced their arguments, the Tribunal ought to have recorded their contentions and should have passed a reasoned order or disposed of the O.A. 11. Apart from the above, the Tribunal, instead of confining its order to the extent of suspending the reversion order passed by the respondent, it committed error in suspending the order of promotion granted to Sri.C.V.Rama Baba as Director (Personnel) without assigning reasons, which is not permissible under law. 12. In the facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 26-3-2009 passed in O.A.No.4283 of 2009 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in so far as the promotion of Sri.C.Rama Baba. In the circumstances, the reversion proceedings No.MD/HMWSSB/ 2008-09/2043/6586, dated 29.1.2009 of Sri.S.Prabhakar Sharma are set aside and Sri.S.Prabhakar Sharma shall be continued in the post of Director (Engineering) till 23.4.2009. Consequently, Tribunal shall pass a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. 15. Both the writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly, at the admission stage. No costs. 7th April, 2009. (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) TNB/CS (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J) Advance order dispatched. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.7140 AND 7121 OF 2009 (Order of the Bench delivered by GM,J) 7th April, 2009. [1] II (2008) SLT 459 [2] II (2008) SLT 540 [3] 2003(7) SUPREME 152