REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.             OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) no. 4465/06)

U.P.S.R.T.C. ….Appellant

Versus

Jagdish Prasad Gupta ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is  to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the

appellant.   Challenge in the writ  petition was to  the order passed by the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur.

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

Respondent was posted as Booking Clerk at Gorakhpur Station.  He

was found involved in serious acts of misconduct, not taking interest in the

job,  carelessness  in  performance  and  usually  coming  late  to  office  and

remaining  absent  and not  complying with  orders.   In  this  regard  several

letters  were  written  by  the  senior  Foreman  directing  the  respondent  to

improve  his  conduct  and  warning  him that  unless  he  improved  himself,

necessary  orders  shall  be  passed.   He  was  asked  to  make  certain

clarifications by letter dated 24.4.1980 to which he did not submit a reply.

He was suspended from service on 26.7.1980 and was asked to place his

defence.  Since his reply was found not satisfactory, a decision was taken to

conduct an enquiry on 30.8.1980.  A charge sheet was issued to him and he

was asked to furnish reply in respect of the following charges:

1. for not maintaining vehicle wise register as per rules and

not making up to date entries in the same.

2

2. For  not  taking  interest  in  work,  carelessness  in

performance  and  not  producing  the  requisite

clarifications when asked to do so by superiors.\

3. For marking his presence on the attendance register on a

day when he remained absent and  

4. Willfully causing disappearance of departmental records.

A departmental  enquiry was  initiated  and the  Enquiry officer  after

concluding  the  same  submitted  the  enquiry  report.  During  enquiry  the

charges leveled against the respondent were found to be proved and as such

he was removed from service by order dated 30.7.1988.  Respondent filed

an  application  in  2002  before  the  Presiding  Officer,  Labour  Court,

Gorakhpur which was listed as Adjudication Case No.25 of 2002.  In course

of examination by the Labour Court on 28.1.2004, respondent admitted that

certain entries in register entered by him could not be made.  The Labour

Court directed re-instatement with 50% backwages.  The writ petition was

filed  which  was  dismissed  summarily  after  issuance  of  notice  to  the

respondent who filed his reply.   

3

4. The basic stand of the appellant is that the order is non-reasoned and

the High Court had not even considered the various stands highlighted by

the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the

order of the High Court.

6. It appears that the High Court had initially issued notice and reply

was filed by the respondent.  After that the High Court has dismissed the

writ  petition  in  a  summary  manner.   It  cannot  be  said  that  the  various

aspects  highlighted  by  the  appellant  were  without  any substance.   What

would have the effect of it  was to be enquired in the writ petition which

apparently has not been done.  The order reads as follows:

“Impugned  order  does  not  suffer  from  any

infirmity  warranting  interference  by  this  Court.

Consequently writ petition is dismissed.”  

4

7. As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that practically no

reason was indicated,  the dismissal  of the writ  petition in such summary

manner without indicating any reason is clearly indefensible.

8. Reasons introduce clarity in  an order.  On plainest  consideration of

justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,

in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its

order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons

has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable.  

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 LCR 120) 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

5

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.  

10.        This Court in State of Orissa  v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004 (5) SCC

568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past

two  decades  emphasised  the  necessity,  duty  and  obligation  of  the  High

Court  to  record  reasons  in  disposing  of  such  cases.  The  hallmark  of  a

judgment/order  and  exercise  of  judicial  power  by a  judicial  forum is  to

disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always

insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-

delivery  system,  to  make  known  that  there  had  been  proper  and  due

application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential

requisite  of  principles  of  natural  justice.  Any  judicial  power  has  to  be

judiciously exercised and the mere fact  that  discretion is vested with the

court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license

to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by

6

the  well-known  saying:  “varying  according  to  the  Chancellor’s  foot”.

Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of

any power,  all  the  more so  when such orders  are  amenable  to  challenge

further  before  higher  forums.  Such  ritualistic  observations  and  summary

disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a proper and

judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim before the courts. The

giving  of  reasons  for  a  decision  is  an  essential  attribute  of  judicial  and

judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication

to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the

fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.  

11. The attempt  to  draw an analogy on the power of this  Court  under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’)

and the practice  of rejecting appeals  at  the SLP stage invariably without

assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ

petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not

the final  court  in  the hierarchy and its  orders  are  amenable  to  challenge

before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any

further  appeal  from  the  order  made  declining  to  grant  special  leave  to

appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of

the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party

7

as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in

exercising  powers  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  The

powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and

extraordinary  and  the  main  object  is  to  ensure  that  there  has  been  no

miscarriage  of  justice.  That  cannot  be  said  to  be  the  same  with  a  writ

petition.

12. The above position is highlighted in Dr. Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State

of U.P. & Ors. [2008(3) SCC 172].  

13. In the circumstances the impugned order of the High Court is clearly

unsustainable and is set aside.  The matter is remitted to the High Court to

hear the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52959 of 2005 to be disposed of by a

reasoned order.  There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

……………………..…………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..…………………..………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi,

8

March 25, 2009

9