C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 Date of decision : February 13, 2009 Ranbir Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been punished on account of the fact that a person in his custody escaped. Originally, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was stoppage of five increments with permanent effect which has in appeal/revision been reduced to stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and secondly the revisional order does not contain any reasons. C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::2:: As regards the first contention, there is a catena of judgments which lay down that mere acquittal in a criminal case could not be a ground for holding a delinquent employee not guilty in departmental proceedings. As regards the second contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Raj Kishore Jha vs State of Bihar and others, 2003(11) SCC 519, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- “.... Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same it becomes lifeless....” It may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others, (2006) 4 SCC 713, held in para 33 as follows:- “An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order but the authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind on his part as regards the compliance with the requirements of law while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules.” Further, in Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported as (1977) 1 SCC 472 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court repelled the contention of counsel for the appellant that every order appealable under Article 136 of the Constitution must be a speaking order and the omission to give reasons for the decision is of itself a sufficient ground for quashing it and held that an order of an administrative tribunal rejecting a revision application cannot be pronounced to be invalid on the sole ground that it does not give reasons for rejection. While C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::3:: distinguishing the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala where the Central Government reversed the decision of the State Government without giving reasons for reversal, this Court pointed out that there was a vital difference between the order of reversal by the appellate authority and the order of affirmance by the revising authority and that if the revising authority rejects a revision application stating that there was no valid ground for interference with the order of the subordinate authority in such a case, it could not be held that the order was arbitrary or that there was no trial of the revision application. Subba Rao, J. ( as he then was) speaking for himself in that case observed: Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly; but in a case of affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with those reasons.” In S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India reported as (1990) 4 SCC 594 the Apex Court held as follows:- “The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the revisional Authority has applied its mind to all the relevant considerations. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above it cannot be held that the order is illegal. C.W.P No. 2372 of 2009 ::4:: Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 13, 2009. JUDGE `kk'