RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 118 JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH Vs Vs Vs Vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with Ms. Mehak Maini, Advocate Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Adee HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The First appeal filed by the the learned Additional District Judge, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. [2]. By way of present a decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter to be referred as the appeal filed at the instance of plaintiff judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar, (hereinafter to be referred as the declaration filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.776 of 1999 776 of 1999 776 of 1999 776 of 1999 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the appellant(s). Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with Ms. Mehak Maini, Advocate Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Adeep Chhibber Sharma, Advo **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant(s)/plaintiff(s) is/are First appeal filed by the plaintiff-Joginder Singh (now deceased) learned Additional District Judge, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Rupnagar. the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court appeal filed at the instance of plaintiff-Joginder Singh (now deceased) against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court declaration filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment ssed by the learned Trial Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 776 of 1999 776 of 1999 776 of 1999 776 of 1999 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 15 15 15 15.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS. (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS....... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant(s) (s) (s) (s) PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate and Chhibber Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. in appeal before this Court. The Joginder Singh (now deceased) was dismissed learned Additional District Judge, thereby affirming the judgment and decree Judge, Rupnagar. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. ppeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court””””), whereby an Joginder Singh (now deceased) against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court””””)))) dismissing the suit f declaration filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment 1 The dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, thereby affirming the judgment and decree For the sake of convenience, ppeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, ), whereby an Joginder Singh (now deceased) against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) [3]. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the plaintiff with the averments that he was appoi was posted at Patran. It was further pleaded that during the posting of the plaintiff as J.E.-II in village Hazipur in Dasuya Division, Sariana was subjected to theft case was referred to the police by the Department. However in pursuance of departmental enquiry, an order dated 05.08.1993 was passed by the Chief Engineer, Distribution/Central Ludhiana vide which an amount of Rs.9150/ ordered to be recovered from the plaintiff towards loss against the above mentioned theft. The said order was claimed to be passed without following proper procedure and against the principles of natural justice. Hence the suit was filed. [4]. Upon notic statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, standi of the plaintiff to file the suit and territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On merits, it was pleaded that o show cause notice was served upon him. After considering the reply of the plaintiff and perusing the relevant records, the recovery order dated 05.08.1993 was passed by the competent authority. Theref plaintiff filed replication reiterating the assertions made in the plaint and controverting the assertions, which were not admitted in the written statement. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: “1. 2. 3. RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the plaintiff with the averments that he was appointed as Lineman on 04.01.1977 and was posted at Patran. It was further pleaded that during the posting of the plaintiff II in village Hazipur in Dasuya Division, Sariana was subjected to theft on the intervening case was referred to the police by the Department. However in pursuance of departmental enquiry, an order dated 05.08.1993 was passed by the Chief Engineer, Distribution/Central Ludhiana vide which an amount of Rs.9150/ ordered to be recovered from the plaintiff towards loss against the above mentioned theft. The said order was claimed to be passed without following proper procedure and against the principles of natural justice. Hence the suit was filed. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, of the plaintiff to file the suit and territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On merits, it was pleaded that on account of irregularity committed by the plaintiff, a show cause notice was served upon him. After considering the reply of the plaintiff and perusing the relevant records, the recovery order dated 05.08.1993 was passed by the competent authority. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication reiterating the assertions made in the plaint and controverting the assertions, which were not admitted in the written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no locus OPD Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file OPD Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the nted as Lineman on 04.01.1977 and was posted at Patran. It was further pleaded that during the posting of the plaintiff II in village Hazipur in Dasuya Division, the transformer installed at village on the intervening night of 23/24.08.1984 and the case was referred to the police by the Department. However in pursuance of departmental enquiry, an order dated 05.08.1993 was passed by the Chief Engineer, Distribution/Central Ludhiana vide which an amount of Rs.9150/- was ordered to be recovered from the plaintiff towards loss against the above mentioned theft. The said order was claimed to be passed without following proper procedure and against the principles of natural justice. Hence the suit was filed. e, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, locus of the plaintiff to file the suit and territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On n account of irregularity committed by the plaintiff, a show cause notice was served upon him. After considering the reply of the plaintiff and perusing the relevant records, the recovery order dated 05.08.1993 was passed ore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication reiterating the assertions made in the plaint and controverting the assertions, which were not admitted in the written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? 2 Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the nted as Lineman on 04.01.1977 and was posted at Patran. It was further pleaded that during the posting of the plaintiff the transformer installed at village night of 23/24.08.1984 and the case was referred to the police by the Department. However in pursuance of departmental enquiry, an order dated 05.08.1993 was passed by the Chief was ordered to be recovered from the plaintiff towards loss against the above mentioned theft. The said order was claimed to be passed without following proper e, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written locus of the plaintiff to file the suit and territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On n account of irregularity committed by the plaintiff, a show cause notice was served upon him. After considering the reply of the plaintiff and perusing the relevant records, the recovery order dated 05.08.1993 was passed ore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication reiterating the assertions made in the plaint and , the learned Trial Court Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD standi to file the present suit? this suit? MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) 4. 5. 6. 7. [6]. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff with costs. [7]. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated Appellate Court. However, findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No.4 were reversed and set aside. [8]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s). [9]. A perusal of the re transformer was installed in village Sariana on 12.11.1979. The plaintiff being employed as J.E. periodical inspections of the said transformer 23/24.08.1984, a theft occurred because of which the copper coils of the said transformer were stolen by the thieves and the transformer oil was drained out. Thereafter, based on a fact Division, PSEB, Dasuya, a recovery to the tune of Rs.9150/ the plaintiff vide order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana, while holding that the plaintiff failed to perform his duty properly being negligent and as a result thereof, the thieves succeeded in RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD Whether the order No.1025 dated 05.08.1993 passed by the defendants is illegal, null and void etc. etc. as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP Relief.” The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff with costs. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 Appellate Court. However, findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No.4 were reversed and set aside. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s). A perusal of the record shows that, in the present case transformer was installed in village Sariana on 12.11.1979. The plaintiff being employed as J.E.-II was posted at Hazipur in Dasuya Division, was to carry out periodical inspections of the said transformer 23/24.08.1984, a theft occurred because of which the copper coils of the said transformer were stolen by the thieves and the transformer oil was drained out. Thereafter, based on a fact-finding enquiry by the Executive Enginee Division, PSEB, Dasuya, a recovery to the tune of Rs.9150/ the plaintiff vide order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana, while holding that the plaintiff failed to perform his duty erly being negligent and as a result thereof, the thieves succeeded in Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? Whether the order No.1025 dated 05.08.1993 passed by the defendants is illegal, null and void etc. etc. as alleged by the ff is entitled to the decree for declaration as The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff with costs. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, which was also 30.11.1998 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. However, findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No.4 were Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made cord shows that, in the present case, admittedly a transformer was installed in village Sariana on 12.11.1979. The plaintiff being II was posted at Hazipur in Dasuya Division, was to carry out periodical inspections of the said transformer. On the intervening night of 23/24.08.1984, a theft occurred because of which the copper coils of the said transformer were stolen by the thieves and the transformer oil was drained out. finding enquiry by the Executive Engineer, DS Division, PSEB, Dasuya, a recovery to the tune of Rs.9150/- was ordered against the plaintiff vide order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P-6) passed by the Chief Engineer, D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana, while holding that the plaintiff failed to perform his duty erly being negligent and as a result thereof, the thieves succeeded in 3 Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? Whether the order No.1025 dated 05.08.1993 passed by the defendants is illegal, null and void etc. etc. as alleged by the ff is entitled to the decree for declaration as The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated which was also passed by the learned First Appellate Court. However, findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No.4 were I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made admittedly a transformer was installed in village Sariana on 12.11.1979. The plaintiff being II was posted at Hazipur in Dasuya Division, was to carry out . On the intervening night of 23/24.08.1984, a theft occurred because of which the copper coils of the said transformer were stolen by the thieves and the transformer oil was drained out. r, DS was ordered against 6) passed by the Chief Engineer, D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana, while holding that the plaintiff failed to perform his duty erly being negligent and as a result thereof, the thieves succeeded in MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) committing the theft of the copper coils of the transformer thereby causing loss to the Department. [10]. A perusal of the record shows that the order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P-6) passed by the Chief Engineer, D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana discloses no reasons, no reference to any material considered by the competent authority, and no engagement with the case of the plaintiff. It simpliciter says that the reply submitted by the plaintiff was Executive Engineer/Distribution/Division, Dasuya, and the Assistant Executive Engineer/Distribution Sub and that accordingly, under Regulation 5(III) of the (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971/Civil Service Rules, 1970, whichever be applicable, a sum of Rs. 9,150/ from the plaintiff. The order does not indicate what was found unsa plaintiff's reply, what the comments of the two officers actually stated, or how the plaintiff's explanation, if any, was dealt with. [11]. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a pa due diligence, and in Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority held that the face of an order passed by a quasi administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was conside prejudicial order. [11.1]. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) committing the theft of the copper coils of the transformer thereby causing loss to the Department. A perusal of the record shows that the order dated 05.08.1993 sed by the Chief Engineer, D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana discloses no reasons, no reference to any material considered by the competent authority, and no engagement with the case of the plaintiff. It simpliciter says that the reply submitted by the plaintiff was considered along with the comments of the Executive Engineer/Distribution/Division, Dasuya, and the Assistant Executive Engineer/Distribution Sub-Division, Hazipur, and was found "fully unsatisfactory", and that accordingly, under Regulation 5(III) of the (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971/Civil Service Rules, 1970, whichever be applicable, a sum of Rs. 9,150/- towards deficiency of material be recovered from the plaintiff. The order does not indicate what was found unsa plaintiff's reply, what the comments of the two officers actually stated, or how the plaintiff's explanation, if any, was dealt with. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence, and in a reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was conside prejudicial order. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 committing the theft of the copper coils of the transformer thereby causing loss to A perusal of the record shows that the order dated 05.08.1993 sed by the Chief Engineer, D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana discloses no reasons, no reference to any material considered by the competent authority, and no engagement with the case of the plaintiff. It simpliciter says that the reply considered along with the comments of the Executive Engineer/Distribution/Division, Dasuya, and the Assistant Executive Division, Hazipur, and was found "fully unsatisfactory", and that accordingly, under Regulation 5(III) of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971/Civil Service Rules, 1970, whichever towards deficiency of material be recovered from the plaintiff. The order does not indicate what was found unsatisfactory in the plaintiff's reply, what the comments of the two officers actually stated, or how the It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an rticular power, the same is required to be exercised with reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and in support of its decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of State of State of State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to 4 committing the theft of the copper coils of the transformer thereby causing loss to A perusal of the record shows that the order dated 05.08.1993 sed by the Chief Engineer, D.S. (Centre), Ludhiana discloses no reasons, no reference to any material considered by the competent authority, and no engagement with the case of the plaintiff. It simpliciter says that the reply considered along with the comments of the Executive Engineer/Distribution/Division, Dasuya, and the Assistant Executive Division, Hazipur, and was found "fully unsatisfactory", Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971/Civil Service Rules, 1970, whichever towards deficiency of material be recovered tisfactory in the plaintiff's reply, what the comments of the two officers actually stated, or how the It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an rticular power, the same is required to be exercised with reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and in support of its decision. It has been judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected red before passing the State of State of State of State of is relevant to MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. the Government does not have cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is q as under:- "7. The same principle was upheld more recently in U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1993) 1 SCC 445 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 548 548 548 [11.2]. Also Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even a administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. The relevant "47. Summarising the above discussion, this (f) Reasons have virtually beco decision judicial, quasi RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. the Government does not have carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is q "7. The same principle was upheld more recently in U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 548 548 548 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Also the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even a administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. The relevant "47. Summarising the above discussion, this (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodi quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It was further clarified that to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted "7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun v. State of Ram Kishun v. State of Ram Kishun v. State of Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382 U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Pub Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd lications Ltd lications Ltd lications Ltd Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. B.S.N. B.S.N. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517". Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Kranti Associates Pvt. Kranti Associates Pvt. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even a administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. The relevant portion is quoted as under:- "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds Court holds Court holds Court holds: me as indispensable a component of a making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial and even by administrative bodies. 5 Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the that to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be uoted Ram Kishun v. State of Ram Kishun v. State of Ram Kishun v. State of Ram Kishun v. State of . However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this lications Ltd lications Ltd lications Ltd lications Ltd Air Air Air Air B.S.N. B.S.N. B.S.N. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC Kranti Associates Pvt. Kranti Associates Pvt. Kranti Associates Pvt. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be me as indispensable a component of a making process as observing principles of natural justice by MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the l system. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 553, at 562 553, at 562 553, at 562 Civ 405 (CA) Civ 405 (CA) Civ 405 (CA) Civ 405 (CA) Convention of Human Rights which requires,"adequate and reasons must be given for judicial decisions". [11.3]. Tested against this standard, the order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P plainly fails. It records a bald conclusion of "fully unsatisfactory" without disclosing the reasoning behind it. It does the plaintiff's explanation, what material established negligence on his part, or how RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) xxxxx (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. xxxxx (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 553, at 562 553, at 562 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA) Civ 405 (CA) Civ 405 (CA) Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,"adequate and reasons must be given for judicial decisions". Tested against this standard, the order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P plainly fails. It records a bald conclusion of "fully unsatisfactory" without disclosing the reasoning behind it. It does not indicate what was found deficient in the plaintiff's explanation, what material established negligence on his part, or how (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This itigants' faith in the justice delivery (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". Tested against this standard, the order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P plainly fails. It records a bald conclusion of "fully unsatisfactory" without not indicate what was found deficient in the plaintiff's explanation, what material established negligence on his part, or how 6 (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This itigants' faith in the justice delivery (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European intelligent Tested against this standard, the order dated 05.08.1993 (Ex.P-6) plainly fails. It records a bald conclusion of "fully unsatisfactory" without not indicate what was found deficient in the plaintiff's explanation, what material established negligence on his part, or how MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) the theft committed by unknown persons came to be linked to any lapse on his part. It is not possible for this Court, or the plai was weighed before recovery was ordered against him. Notably, the order is not disputed as a document; it has in fact been relied upon by the defendants themselves, exhibited as Ex.D face. The order is accordingly not a speaking order ground. [12]. Moreover, in the humble opinion of this Court, the fact that the plaintiff, employed as J.E. responsible for periodical inspection of the 50 KVA transformer installed at village Sariana, cannot be held to be negligent by any stretch of imagination merely because a theft occurred on the intervening night of 23/24.08.1984, copper coils of Engineer charged with periodical inspection, the plaintiff was not required to remain present at the site at all times, and a theft committed during the night by unknown persons cannot be Courts below therefore erred in holding the plaintiff liable for the financial loss caused to the Department. [13]. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.1995 and 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed. The amount recovered from interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery upto the date of this order. The needful be done within three months from today. In case of default, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) the theft committed by unknown persons came to be linked to any lapse on his part. It is not possible for this Court, or the plaintiff himself, to know how his case was weighed before recovery was ordered against him. Notably, the order is not disputed as a document; it has in fact been relied upon by the defendants themselves, exhibited as Ex.D-4, so its infirmity lies not in proof face. The order is accordingly not a speaking order Moreover, in the humble opinion of this Court, the fact that the plaintiff, employed as J.E.-II in village Hazipur in Dasuya Division, sponsible for periodical inspection of the 50 KVA transformer installed at village , cannot be held to be negligent by any stretch of imagination merely because a theft occurred on the intervening night of 23/24.08.1984, the transformer were stolen and its oil drained out. Being a Junior Engineer charged with periodical inspection, the plaintiff was not required to remain present at the site at all times, and a theft committed during the night by unknown persons cannot be attributed to any lapse of duty on his part. The learned Courts below therefore erred in holding the plaintiff liable for the financial loss caused to the Department. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.1995 and 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed. The amount recovered from the plaintiff be returned to the appellant(s) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery upto the date of this order. The needful be done within three months from today. In case of default, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of recovery till the the theft committed by unknown persons came to be linked to any lapse on his ntiff himself, to know how his case was weighed before recovery was ordered against him. Notably, the order is not disputed as a document; it has in fact been relied upon by the defendants 4, so its infirmity lies not in proof but on its own face. The order is accordingly not a speaking order and cannot be sustained on this Moreover, in the humble opinion of this Court, the fact that the II in village Hazipur in Dasuya Division, was sponsible for periodical inspection of the 50 KVA transformer installed at village , cannot be held to be negligent by any stretch of imagination merely because a theft occurred on the intervening night of 23/24.08.1984, in which the the transformer were stolen and its oil drained out. Being a Junior Engineer charged with periodical inspection, the plaintiff was not required to remain present at the site at all times, and a theft committed during the night by attributed to any lapse of duty on his part. The learned Courts below therefore erred in holding the plaintiff liable for the financial loss As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.1995 and 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed. the plaintiff be returned to the appellant(s) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery upto the date of this order. The needful be done within three months from today. In case of default, the @ 12% from the date of recovery till the 7 the theft committed by unknown persons came to be linked to any lapse on his ntiff himself, to know how his case was weighed before recovery was ordered against him. Notably, the order is not disputed as a document; it has in fact been relied upon by the defendants but on its own and cannot be sustained on this Moreover, in the humble opinion of this Court, the fact that the was sponsible for periodical inspection of the 50 KVA transformer installed at village , cannot be held to be negligent by any stretch of imagination merely in which the the transformer were stolen and its oil drained out. Being a Junior Engineer charged with periodical inspection, the plaintiff was not required to remain present at the site at all times, and a theft committed during the night by attributed to any lapse of duty on his part. The learned Courts below therefore erred in holding the plaintiff liable for the financial loss As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.1995 and 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed. the plaintiff be returned to the appellant(s) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery upto the date of this order. The needful be done within three months from today. In case of default, the @ 12% from the date of recovery till the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) date of actual disbursement to the appellant(s). Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. [14]. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July July July July 15 15 15 15, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No.776 of 1999 (O&M) date of actual disbursement to the appellant(s). Decree sheet be prepared Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No date of actual disbursement to the appellant(s). Decree sheet be prepared Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8 date of actual disbursement to the appellant(s). Decree sheet be prepared Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment