IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 151 of 2005. Date of Decision: 19th March, 2008. Ex. Col. Jaswant Singh …..Petitioner Versus The Union of India ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Central Government counsel. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The petitioner who was serving in the Indian Army in the rank of Colonel has challenged the order passed by the Ministry of Defence Annexure P-26, dismissing the Post Confirmation Petition under the Army Act,(hereafter referred to as the Act) preferred by the petitioner under Section 164 (2) of the Act, read with para 365 of the Regulations. The petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the General Court Martial initiated against him on 17th November, 2003. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he was 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - charged under Section 52 (f) of the Act accusing him of complicity in land acquisition proceedings. The charge against the petitioner was that he had been instrumental in stalling acquisition proceedings which were considered necessary for serving defence purposes as a part of the land had been purchased by his wife Anjana Thakur whom he wanted to help. The petitioner in a detailed Post Confirmation Petition preferred by him had set out a number of grounds which, according to him were sufficient to set aside the penalty of being cashiered from service imposed upon him. A number of grounds have been urged by the petitioner in this petition that he was not guilty of the offences/charges leveled against him. Without going into the merits of the entire petition, I find from the record that the statutory powers exercised by the Union of India under Section 164 (2) of the Act are not in consonance with law. Although the order purports to be in three pages yet, for all intents and purposes it does not show that the authority has applied its mind to the grounds set out by the petitioner which are in detail and would require consideration of the entire material instead of disposal of the petition by a mere non speaking order by simply observing that proceedings initiated and conducted against the petitioner are in accordance with law and thereafter holding that there is no infirmity in the sentence etc. imposed upon him. The order Annexure P-26 does not give any reason and simply dismiss the appeal by holding that Army Act and Rules have been complied with. It is by now well settled that an order entailing - 3 - civil consequences must contain reasons for its decision. This proposition of law is by now firmly established. A reference may be made to Nibaran Chandra Bag, v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu (deceased), after him his heir and legal representative (AIR 1963 SC 1895); M/S Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. The Union of India and others (AIR 1971 SC 862); The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and another (AIR 1976 SC 1785); Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K.Ratna and others (AIR 1987 SC 71) and Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and another (2004) 13 SCC 234. The principle of law laid down in these cases does not need any reiteration. Merely stating that a particular provision has been complied with or not, without reference to the material on record will not by itself be sufficient compliance of these principles. The petitioner was serving as a red colour officer in the Indian Army having served in various active theatres or war. He has averred that he had been awarded medals etc. which facts have not been controverted. Being cashiered from the Army is the greatest stigma which can attach to an Army Officer. His fate is worse than that of death. Reading of the confirmation order leaves no doubt in my mind that it has been passed in a cursory manner without application of mind. Although, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that every confirmatory/appellate order has to contain detailed reasons. Yet since the order so passed would be - 4 - subject to scrutiny in writ jurisdiction of this court it must contain sufficient reasons howsoever brief to show the basics on which rejection has been made. As observed, the order is terse and does not disclose the application of mind of the authority disposing of objections against the confirmation petition. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-26 is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and thereafter dispose of the objections Annexure P-24 preferred by the petitioner. This exercise will be completed within a period of six months from the date this order is presented to respondent No. 1. There shall be no order as to costs. It is specifically clarified that any observation made in this writ petition does not in any manner reflect any opinion on the merits of the cease of the petitioner. 19th March, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.