Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=8418
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 22:33:43
Document Index: 629538105

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 226', 'Art. 311', 'Art.\n311', 'Art.311', 'Art. 136', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 136', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 141', 'Art. 136']

ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKA versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR
1986 AIR 1497	1986 SCR (2)1101 1986 SCC Supl. (3) 696 1986 SCALE (1)796
ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKA V. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR [1986] RD-SC 113 (8 May 1986)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 1497	1986 SCR (2)1101 1986 SCC Supl. (3) 696 1986 SCALE (1)796
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 226	and 227 - Necessity of High Courts to make speaking orders while dismissing petitions.
The petitioner, who had a brilliant record in service, was reverted on Jan. 4, 1985	from the post of Police Inspector to	that of Police Sub-Inspector with	the endorsement that such reversion would not disqualify him for being considered for	promotion to the post of Police Inspector in future. He made	a detailed representation contending that	his reversion was wholly unjustified. Since he did	not receive any redress of his grievance, he moved the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of reversion as	being violative of Art. 311(2) of	the Constitution. The High	Court	dismissed the	petition in limine.
In appeal	to the	Supreme Court it was contended: (i) that the reversion of	the appellant	from the post of Officiating Police-Inspector to that of Police Sub-Inspector was by	way of	punishment and	was thus violative of	Art.
311(2) of the Constitution; and (ii) that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine.
HELD: 1. The impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the	writ petition in limine by the use of a laconic word "rejected" cannot	be sustained.	It does	not inspire public	confidence in administration of justice if the High Courts were to reject the writ petitions without due application	of mind even though substantial questions were raised in the writ petitions. It was not right on the part of	the High Court to have declined to entertain and decide the 1102 question as to whether	the impugned order of reversion was liable to be struck down as offending against Art.311(2) of the Constitution. The writ petition did raise an arguable question and it deserved hearing upon	merits. [1104	G-H;
1105 A-B]
2.1 In a hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our country, all courts and tribunals	including the	High Court exercising judicial and	quasi-judicial functions owe it a	duty to pass	reasoned orders. Therefore, while dismissing a writ petition summarily, the High Court must record reasons	briefly. A brief statement of reasons would greatly assist	the Supreme Court in understanding the High Court's thought	process which,	in turn facilitates a quick and satisfactory disposal of Special Leave Petitions. [1105 B-C; E-G]
2.2 The High Courts should understand this Court's difficulty in unravelling the reasons for summary dismissal in the	absence of a brief statement of reasons. It would considerably lighten the task	of Supreme Court if the High Courts while dismissing a writ petition were to indicate in a few words the contention(s) urged and their views that the contentions cannot prevail. [1105 G; D] In the instant case, the Court directed the High Court to admit the writ petition to its file and dispose it of in accordance with law. [1106 A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1963 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19th September, 1985 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1985.
U.R. Lalit, S.V. Deshpande, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S. Ray for the Appellant.
V.N. Ganpule, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This is a petition for grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution directed against the 1103 judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated September 19, 1985 dismising a petition filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Additional Inspector General of Police, Bombay dated January 4, 1985	for his reversion from the post of Offg. Police Inspector to that of	Sub-Inspector of Police as being violative of Art. 311(2) of	the Constitution. By	the impugned order,	the High Court has	dismissed the	Writ Petition in limine just by the use	of a laconic	word 'rejected'.
The Facts.	The petitioner was promoted as Offg. Police Inspector on May 22, 1983, on	the recommendation of	the Selection Board upon reviewing his case. While he was posted as Police Inspector at	Ramtak	in 1982, he	successfully handled the difficult situation arising at Kanhan Coal Mines where there was a quarrel between	two unions, namely I.T.U.C. and I.N.T.U.C. and received a cash prize of Rs. 50 and 'C'	Note from the	Superintendent	of Police, Nagpur District (Rural) by order dated October 28, 1983. He also received several commendations for tactfully handling	the situation at Kamptee on the eve of	Dussehra, Muharram, Ganeshpooja and	Bakr-Id festivals in the years 1982	and 1983. During the period from February to March 1983, he was deputed to Delhi as a Special	Security Officer for	the Seventh Non-Aligned Conference and was posted at Vigyan Bhawan for making security arrangements. All of a sudden on January 4, 1985, the petitioner was served with the impugned order of reversion by	the Additional	Inspector General of Police, Bombay	from the Post of Police Inspector to that of Police	Sub-Inspector	with the endorsement that	such reversion would	not disqualify him for being considered for promotion to the post of Police Inspector in future.
It	appears from	the return filed by the State Government in the High	Court that this reversion was based upon the report of the Selection Committee that he was not fit to	be retained as Police Inspector. The recommendation was based on the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 to the effect that the petitioner was given to heavy drinking	and had	practically become a physical wreck and though young he was wholly unfit to hold independent charge. The adverse entries in the	Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 were communicated to the petitioner in December 1984.
1104 The petitioner	was given two	months'	time to make	his representation against	the adverse entries i.e. time till February 1985.
The petitioner contends that the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 were wholly baseless	and he	accordingly within time prescribed, made a	detailed representation pointing out that	his reversion on the ground of the Annual Confidential Reports was wholly unjustified. He	also	annexed	with	the representation all the documents which he filed along with the Writ Petition, showing that the remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports that he was unfit for service	were uncalled for and prayed that the order of reversion be stayed till the consideration	of his	representation. Not having received	any redress of his grievance the petitioner moved the Nagpur Bench	of the Bombay High	Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition in limine. On a perusal of the	return filed by the State Government	in the	High Court, it is apparent	that the reversion of the petitioner was solely based on the recommendation of the Selection Board which appears to have reviewed his case for retention on the	post of Police Inspector and took into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983.
The only contention before us is that the reversion of the petitioner	from the post of Offg. Police Inspector to that of Police Sub-Inspector was by way of punishment and was thus violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. It is urged that the High Court was	not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition in limine.
We refrain	from expressing any opinion	whether	the impugned order	was by way of punishment or not. All that we wish to	say is	that we are distressed to find that	the impugned order	passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition in limine by	the use of a laconic word 'rejected' cannot be sustained. It does not inspire public confidence in administration of justice if the High Courts were to reject the Writ Petitions without due	application of mind even though substantial questions were raised	in the Writ Petitions. It was not right on the part of the High Court to have declined 1105 to entertain and decide the question	as to	whether	the impugned order	of reversion was liable to be struck down as offending against Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The Writ Petition did raise an	arguable question and	it deserved hearing upon merits.
In a hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our country, all courts and tribunals including the High Court exercising judicial and quasi-judicial	functions owe	it a duty to	pass reasoned	orders. As it is, there is a growing tendency to file indiscriminate petitions under Art. 136 of the Constitution and this Court is finding it extremely difficult to tackle with the backlog of cases because of the precious time	occupied in	disposal of Special Leave Petitions which, we regret to say, are wholly devoid of substance and of a frivolous nature. It would considerably lighten the task of this Court if the High Courts while dismissing a Writ Petition were to indicate in a few words the contention(s) urged and	their	views	that	the contention(s) cannot prevail. We are distressed to find that there is a growing tendency in some of the High Courts to dismiss petitions filed under	Art. 226 or	227 of	the Constitution in	limine without a speaking order just by the use of a laconic word 'rejected' or 'dismissed'.
How often	must this Court decree that while dismissing a Writ	Petition summarily, the High	Court	must record reasons briefly? We regret that this has to be stated once again. We trust the High Courts to follow the law laid down by this	Court which, indeed, is obligatory upon them under Art. 141 of the Constitution. A brief statement of reasons would greatly assist this Court in understanding the High Court's thought	process which,	in turn facilitates a quick and satisfactory disposal of Special Leave Petitions. We understand the difficulty of the High Courts in writing long orders while dismissing Writ Petitions summarily. The High Courts should understand our difficulty in unravelling the reasons for summary dismissal	in the	absence of a brief statement of reasons. These are hallmarks of a disciplined judicial process.
Since, in	the instant case, the	Writ Petition	did involve a question deserving of careful consideration, we grant special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution and set 1106 aside the order of the High Court of summary dismissal. We direct the High Court to admit the Writ Petition to its file and dispose it of in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs. Costs quantified at Rs.1,000.
M.L.A.	Appeal allowed.