CWP-30098 IN TH 111 Bhai Lakhwi Shiromani Gu CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Const Certiorari whereby the 08.06.2024 ( dismissed by issued for rei wages and all 1 098-2025 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o akhwinder Singh VERSUS ani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for the issuan ri for quashing the order dated y the petitioner was dismissed from s 024 (Annexure P-16) whereby the sed by the Appellate Authority. It is fu for reinstatement of the petitioner with and all consequential benefits. NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-30098-2025 Date of Decision: February 02, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS mittee and others ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR vocate for the petitioner. has been filed under Article 226/227 issuance of a writ in the nature of dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure P-5), from service and the resolution dated y the appeal of the petitioner was It is further prayed that a direction be er with continuity of service, full back 2026 itioner ondents 6/227 re of 5), dated r was ion be l back PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 CONTENTI 2. petitioner jo Prabandhak temporary em 26.08.2006 (A made perman the petitioner 3). The prim petitioner lef of 4:00 p.m., petitioner sub these allegati the charges w 3. 28.05.2015 (A natural justic evidence was for a hearing the dismissal that he was n report suppl submitted th 2 098-2025 ENTIONS Learned counsel for the petition er joined the service of the resp dhak Committee (hereinafter referred ary employee and was later issued 006 (Annexure P-1). His services wer ermanent vide an order dated 10.08.2 itioner was served with a charge shee e primary allegation in the charge she er left his duty at 3:50 p.m., ten minu p.m., and was subsequently found i er submitted a detailed reply (Annex llegations, asserting that he never con rges were entirely false and baseless. Learned counsel argued that 015 (Annexure P-5) was passed in gro justice. It is contended that no formal ce was recorded, and the petitioner wa earing before the extreme penalty of missal order mentions a Sub-Committ was never associated with any such supplied to him despite requests ted that the dismissal order was is petitioner inter alia contends that the respondent Shiromani Gurudwara eferred to as ‘SGPC’) initially as a issued an appointment letter dated es were subsequently regularized and 0.08.2010 (Annexure P-2). However, sheet dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P ge sheet was that on 17.12.2013, the n minutes prior to the scheduled time ound in an inebriated condition. Th Annexure P-4) categorically denying er consumed drugs or liquor and that eless. d that the dismissal order dated in gross violation of the principles of ormal inquiry was ever conducted, no ner was never afforded an opportunity lty of dismissal was imposed. While mmittee report, the petitioner asserts such inquiry, nor was a copy of any uests (Annexure P-6). It is further was issued by the Manager of the at the dwara as a dated d and ever, ure P- 3, the d time . The nying d that ed les of ed, no tunity While sserts f any urther f the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 Gurudwara, w rendering the 4. filed an appe 7). Due to in vide CWP N (Annexure P within two m that his appea resolution wa petitioner the 2017. On 22. setting aside cryptic and providing a behalf of the record as Ann 5. 12), the Ap petitioner’s Learned coun Authority rep 3 098-2025 wara, who is an authority lower than th ng the order legally unsustainable. Regarding the appellate proce appeal before the Executive Committ e to inaction by the respondents, the p WP No. 21387 of 2016, which wa ure P-8) with a direction to the res two months. The respondents subseq appeal had already been dismissed on ion was provided until the petitioner so er then challenged this initial dismiss On 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-12), this aside the appellate order on the groun and directed the Appellate authori ing a personal hearing to the petitio of the Respondents in CWP No. 169 as Annexure P-13. In compliance with the order d e Appellate Authority passed a fr er’s appeal vide resolution dated d counsel contended that the fresh res ty repeats the same legal errors an than the appointing authority, thereby proceedings, the petitioner initially mmittee on 04.01.2016 (Annexure P , the petitioner approached this Court ich was disposed of on 17.10.2016 he respondents to decide the appeal subsequently informed the petitioner sed on 22.03.2016, yet no copy of the oner sought it under the RTI Act. The ismissal through CWP No. 16908 of ), this Court allowed the writ petition, grounds that it was non-speaking and uthority to pass a fresh order after petitioner. The written statement on o. 16908 of 2017 has been placed on rder dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P a fresh order and dismissed the dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P-16). sh resolution passed by the Appellate ors and fails to address the specific ereby itially ure P- Court .2016 appeal tioner of the t. The 08 of tition, g and after nt on ed on ure P- d the 16). ellate ecific PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 grounds raise a Sub-Comm is further sub of the petitio by him and fabricated an OBSERVAT 6. perused the re 7. Service Rule of powers un regulates the “(4) Te (A) Th as per by the period (B) In etc.) g under concer days fr 4 098-2025 s raised by the petitioner. It relies on Committee report, neither of which we er submitted that the respondents’ rel petitioner is wholly misplaced, as no s and the document sought to be ted and manipulated. RVATION & ANALYSIS I have heard the learned couns d the record with her able assistance. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prab e Rules governing the service conditio ers under Section 69 of the Sikh Gurd es the termination of an employee and 4) Termination (Maukufi) The employees can be dismissed o per the following rules, but an appe the President can be filed before th riod of thirty days from the date of te In case of any punishment (suspen c.) given to the employees of Gurd der the charge of Shiromani Gurdwa ncerned employee can file an appe ys from the date of passing of order (1) Any employee of Shiromani degraded or removed due to his taking liquor or falling in bad v es on a Legal Assistant’s opinion and ich were supplied to the petitioner. It ts’ reliance on the alleged confession as no such confession was ever made o be relied upon is asserted to be counsel for the petitioner and have nce. a Prabandhak Committee has framed onditions of its employees in exercise Gurdwaras Act, 1925. Rule 4 thereof ee and reads as under: ed only by his appointing authority ppeal against the termination made re the Executive Committee within a of termination. spension, termination, fine, warning urdwaras and all the departments rdwara Prabandhak Committee, the appeal against the same within 30 rder against him. mani committee can be terminated, his misconduct, malafide intention, ad vices, but before his termination, n and ner. It ession made to be have ramed ercise hereof rity ade in a ning ents , the 30 ted, tion, tion, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 5 098-2025 degradation or removal he wou leveled against him in writing i appended by one Statement of the charge-sheet has been fram supplied. The reply to such char employees within stipulated per the charges or seeks enquiry i committee deems it proper th charges will be got conducted i on every item of charge-sheet, w the evidence shall be taken in t the employee will also be pe witnesses. If the employee want then the same will also be cons would be necessary to bring into committee deems it proper th particular defence evidence, the lead the same. On proving the against the employee. There w abovesaid method in case of employees, they can be removed desires to do so. (2) If the employee wants to pre document etc. in his defence the and if the copies of the same is the same will be provided to him will also be permitted to inspec cost. (3) Every such employee who ha or removed, the of executive c and the inquiry committee re provided to him free of cost. (4) (a) removal record agains destroyed for three years; rath custody. The termination, degra (b) The employee who after his without any punishment is shall be entitled for remaining s (5) The Gurdwara Committee removal of any of its employee, the same to Shiromani Gurdwa would be served with the charges ng in the form of charge-sheet duly t of charges, on the basis of which framed against him, shall also be charges shall also be taken from the period and if he refuses to admit iry in that regard or the executive r then the enquiry into the said ted in the presence of employee and eet, which he denies, in that regard in that regard in his presence and e permitted to cross-examine the wants to lead his defence evidence, considered for some reasons, which into notice in writing. If the inquiry r that there is no need for any , then no permission will be given to g the charge, action will be taken re will be no need to adopt the of temporary or under probation oved by the committee whenever it o present any official record or any e then he will be permitted to do so e is required by the employee then o him without any objection and he spect the concerned record free of o has been terminated or degraded ve copies of final order committee e reports in that regard shall be gainst the employees shall not be rather it will be kept under safe egradation or his suspension by holding innocent is reinstated in service, he ng salary of suspension period. ttee at the time of termination or yee, would send the information of dwara Prabandhak Committee and rges duly hich o be the dmit tive said and ard and the nce, hich uiry any n to aken the tion er it any o so then d he e of ded ittee l be t be safe cent he n or n of and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 8. service of an alcohol and satisfies this chargesheet conducting a procedure is wanting for in against him, natural justic 9. Bank of Pat Justice B.P. J “12. It one m severa [wheth the Co exercis 6 098-2025 the employee dismissed by S Gurdwara committee, be not en without the permission of comm no work be got from him, but person can be recruited as emp the permission of Shiromani co Shiromani committee, if it is pro of embezzlement, dishonesty or Gurdwara Prabandhak Commit such person.” A study of the abovementione of any employee can be terminated f l and falling in bad vices. Evidently s this criterion. Furthermore, the sheet upon the delinquent employ ting an inquiry, if necessary. The ure is clearly to ensure that the de g for information with respect to the di him, which essentially amounts to justice. A two-Judge bench of the Ho f Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) B.P. Jeevan Reddy, opined as follows 2. It would be appropriate to pause e may entertain with respect to t veral procedural provisions govern hether provided by rules made und e Constitution, under regulations ercise of the power conferred by a by Shiromani Committee or any ot engaged by any other committee ommittee who has removed him and but in special circumstances, such employee in other committee with ni committee. But in the inquiry of s proved that such person is accused y or immorality, then the Shiromani mmittee shall not permit to engage ntioned provision indicates that the ated for misconduct, consumption of dently, the conduct of the petitioner the provision calls for serving a mployee, receiving his reply and The overarching goal of the said the delinquent employee is not left the disciplinary proceedings initiated nts to honouring the principles of he Hon’ble Supreme Court in State 96) 3 SCC 364, speaking through ollows in this regard: ause here and clarify a doubt which to the principles aforestated. The verning the disciplinary enquiries under the proviso to Article 309 of ions made by statutory bodies in by a statute or for that matter, by any ittee and such with y of used ani age at the ion of tioner ing a and said t left itiated les of tate rough hich The iries 9 of s in , by PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 way of natura the sev bias. O natura rules/r be said a clari whethe princip xxx xxx 34. W discuss evolve orders (1) An conseq the ru should should nature (2) A explain the tes (3) In this: reason officer interes said to cases f catego be exa violatio defend been s remedy order therefr connec proced violati proof judgme that 7 098-2025 ay of a statute] are nothing but el tural justice and their several facet e several facets of rule of audi alte as. One may ask, if a decision arrive tural justice is void, how come a de les/regulations/statutory provisions i said to be not void in certain situati clarification - which in turn calls f ether a decision arrived at in viola inciples of natural justice is void. x xxx xxx . We may summarise the princip scussion. [These are by no means in olved keeping in view the context ders of punishment imposed by an em ) An order passed imposing a nsequent upon a disciplinary/depar e rules/regulations/statutory provis ould not be set aside automatical ould enquire whether (a) the provis ture, or (b) whether it is procedural ) A substantive provision has nor plained hereinbefore and the theor e test of prejudice would not be appli ) In the case of violation of a proce is: procedural provisions are gen asonable and adequate oppor ficer/employee. They are, generall terest. Violation of any and every p id to automatically vitiate the enqui ses falling under 'no notice', 'no tegories, the complaint of violation examined from the point of view o olation has prejudiced the del fending himself properly and effec en so prejudiced, appropriate order medy the prejudice including settin der of punishment. If no prejudice erefrom, it is obvious, no interfe nnection, it may be remembered ocedural provisions which are of a olation is by itself proof of prejudic oof of prejudice in such cases. As dgment, take a case where there is after the evidence of the emp ut elaboration of the principles of facets. It is a case of codification of alteram partem or the rule against rrived at in violation of principles of a decision arrived at in violation of ons incorporating the said rules can tuations. It is this doubt which needs lls for a discussion of the question violation of any and every facet of inciples emerging from the above s intended to be exhaustive and are text of disciplinary enquiries and an employer upon the employee]: a punishment on an employee epartmental enquiry in violation of ovisions governing such enquiries tically. The Court or the Tribunal rovision violated is of a substantive ural in character. normally to be complied with as heory of substantial compliance or applicable in such a case. rocedural provision, the position is generally meant for affording a pportunity to the delinquent erally speaking, conceived in his ery procedural provision cannot be nquiry held or order passed. Except 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' tion of procedural provision should iew of prejudice, viz., whether such delinquent officer/employee in effectively. If it is found that he has rders have to be made to repair and etting aside the enquiry and/or the dice is established to have resulted terference is called for. In this ered that there may be certain of a fundamental character, whose judice. The Court may not insist on . As explained in the body of the e is a provision expressly providing employer/government is over, the s of n of inst es of n of can eeds tion et of bove are and oyee n of iries unal tive as e or n is g a uent his t be cept ing' ould such in has and the lted this tain hose t on the ding the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 employ eviden opport The pr called whethe Now, t directo princip at the distinc (4)(a) manda from th order where employ (b) In manda concei interes the de expres order violati officer waived directi keepin Karun prejud (5) rules/r observ such p of the distinc alteram in the made betwee (a) In invalid cases, 8 098-2025 ployee shall be given an opport idence, and in a given case, the en portunity in spite of the delinquent e prejudice is self-evident. No proo lled for in such a case. To repeat, t ether the person has received a fair w, this very aspect can also be look rectory and mandatory provisions inciple stated under (4) hereinbelow the same aspect as is dealt with stinct principle. )(a) In the case of a procedural andatory character, the complaint o m the standpoint of substantial com der passed in violation of such a p ere such violation has occasione ployee. ) In the case of violation of a proc andatory character, it has to be asce nceived in the interest of the person terest. If it is found to be the forme e delinquent officer has waived pressly or by his conduct. If he is fo der of punishment cannot be set olation. If, on the other hand, it ficer/employee has not waived it or ived by him, then the Court or Trib rections [include the setting aside eping in mind the approach adopted runakar. The ultimate test is a ejudice or the test of fair hearing, a ) Where the enquiry is les/regulations/statutory provisions serve the principles of natural justic ch principles are held to be implied the order/action the Court or stinction between a total violation teram partem] and violation of a fac the body of the judgment. In othe ade between "no opportunity" and tween "no notice"/"no hearing" and ) In the case of former, the order valid [one may call it "void" or nul ses, normally, liberty will be rese portunity to lead defence in his e enquiry officer does not give that uent officer/employee asking for it. proof of prejudice as such need be at, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., fair hearing considering all things. ooked at from the point of view of sions, if one is so inclined. The elow is only another way of looking with herein and not a different or ural provision which is not of a int of violation has to be examined l compliance. Be that as it may, the a provision can be set aside only ioned prejudice to the delinquent procedural provision, which is of a ascertained whether the provision is rson proceeded against or in public rmer, then it must be seen whether ved the said requirement, either is found to have waived it, then the set aside on the ground of said , it is found that the delinquent t or that the provision could not be Tribunal should make appropriat side of the order of punishment], pted by the Constitution Bench in B. is always the same viz., test of g, as it may be called. is not governed by any ions and the only obligation is to justice or, for that matter, wherever plied by the very nature and impact or the Tribunal should make a ion of natural justice [rule of audi a facet of the said rule, as explained other words, a distinction must be and no adequate opportunity, i.e., and "no fair hearing". rder passed would undoubtedly be r nullity if one chooses to]. In such reserved for the Authority to take his that r it. d be i.e., ngs. w of The king t or of a ined , the only uent of a n is blic ther ither the said uent t be riate ent], in B. t of any s to ever act e a audi ined t be i.e., y be such take PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 procee rule au (b) Bu of aud prejud whethe officer be mad clear t agains (6) Wh princip bear i said ru failure applyin (7) Th interes such s with th decisio 10. Court in K.L highlighting judicial actio principles of Justice Sabya “41. It advers natura justice whethe princip each p fair pla objecti reason 9 098-2025 oceedings afresh according to law, i le audi alteram partem. ) But in the latter case, the effect of audi alteram partem] has to be ex ejudice; in other words, what the C ether in the totality of the c ficer/employee did or did not have a made shall depend upon the answe ear that this principle No. 5 does ainst bias, the test in which behalf a ) While applying the rule of audi inciple of natural justice] the Court/ ar in mind the ultimate and over id rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing ilure of justice. It is this objective plying the rule to varying situations ) There may be situations where t terest may call for a curtailing of the ch situations, the Court may have th the requirement of natural justic cision.” Furthermore, a three-Judge be K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of I hting the importance of fairplay in ad l actions opined that it must be see les of natural justice has caused an Sabyasachi Mukharji, the following w It is true that all actions against verse consequences must be in acc tural justice but whether any pa stice would be applicable to a parti hether there has been any infract inciple, has to be judged, in the ligh ch particular case. The basic requ ir play in action and the decision m jective manner with regard to the asons. We must reiterate again that aw, i.e., in accordance with the said ct of violation [of a facet of the rule e examined from the standpoint of the Court or Tribunal has to see is e circumstances, the delinquent ve a fair hearing and the orders to nswer to the said query. It is made oes not apply in the case of rule alf are laid down elsewhere. audi alteram partem [the primary ourt/Tribunal/Authority must always ver-riding objective underlying the aring and to ensure that there is no ctive which should guide them in ions that arise before them. re the interests of state or public f the rule of audi alteram partem. In ave to balance public/State interest ustice and arrive at an appropriate (Emphasis added) ge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme of India (1984) 1 SCC 43, while in administrative, judicial and quasi be seen whether any deviation from ed any prejudice. Speaking through ing was held: inst a party which involve penal or accordance with the principles of y particular principle of natura particular situation or the question fraction of the application of that light of facts and circumstances of requirement is that there must be on must be arrived at in a just and the relevance of the materials and that the rules of natural justice are said ule t of e is uent rs to ade rule ary ays the s no in blic . In rest riate dded) preme while quasi- from gh al or s of ural tion that es of t be and and are PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 flexible compla absenc that pr follow case o Hidaya no dou is a gr of dism actual to him backgr of the infract before of this 1968 S "the do jacket of the charac of the particu Hidaya v. Stat In our case, t associa premis circum justice Neithe delinqu 11. Diljit Singh B 5 SCC 417 from service 10 098-2025 xible and cannot be put on any rigi mplaint of violation of principles of sence of opportunity of cross-exami at prejudice has been caused to th llowed. See in this connection the o se of Jankinath Sarangi v. State idayatullah, C.J., observed there at p doubt that if the principles of natur a gross case this Court would inter dismissal; but there are cases and c tual prejudice has been caused to a him of a particular right." Jud ckground of the facts and circumsta the opinion that there has been fraction of any particular rule of na fore us complained in this case. See this Court in the case of Union of In 68 S.L.R. 104 : (1968)2 SCR 186, w he doctrine of natural justice cannot cket of a rigid formula and its appli the jurisdiction conferred on the ad aracter of the rights of the persons the statute and other relevant rticular case". See also in this c idayatullah, C.J., in the case of Cha State of Mysore, AIR 1972 Suprem our opinion, in the background of se, the nature of investigation condu sociated, there has been no infra emises, for the reasons aforesaid, t rcumstances of the case, no infract stice by the absence of a formal op ither cross-examination nor the opp linquent is an integral part of all qua Pertinently, a two-Judge bench o ngh Bedi vs. Shrimoni Gurudwara P 17 opined that the dismissal of an ervice for bad character under Rule rigid formula. In order to sustain a s of natural justice on the ground of xamination, it has to be established to the appellant by the procedure he observations of this Court in the tate of Orissa, (1969)3 SCC 392 e at page 394 of the report "there is atural justice are violated and there interfere by striking down the order and cases. We have to look to what to a person by the supposed denial udged by this principle, in the mstances mentioned before, we are een no real prejudice caused by f natural justice of which appellant See in this connection observations of India & Anr. v. P.K. Roy & Ors, , where this Court reiterated that nnot be imprisoned within the strait pplication depends upon the nature e administrative authority, upon the ons affected, the scheme and policy ant circumstances disclosed in a is connection the observations of Channabasappa Basappa Happali reme Court 32 : (1971)2 SCR 645 d of facts and circumstances of this onducted in which the appellant was nfraction of that principle. In the id, there has been in the facts and fraction of any principle of natural l opportunity of cross-examination. opportunity to lead evidence by the l quasi-judicial adjudications.” (emphasis added) ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ara Prabhandak Committee, (2011) of an employee, who was terminated Rule 4 of the SGPC Service Rules, in a d of shed dure the 392. re is here rder hat nial the are by llant ions Ors, that it- ture the licy n a s of pali 645. this was the and ural tion. the dded) urt in 011) inated Rules, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 would be val A.K. Patnaik “10. employ charac inquiry Execut Section service of any establi 01.12.2 Comm explan publish finding had de in the the SG 12. charge sheet petitioner, to petitioner wa further indic 2017) exists, with the pro presence. A proceedings w was afforded pointed out 11 098-2025 be valid if it was preceded by an inq atnaik, the following was held: 0. We find on a reading of Rule 4 ployee of the SGPC can be dis aracter only after the charges of m quiry conducted by an inquiry ecutive Committee of the SGPC ction 69 of the Act and the Rules ma rvices of any employee of the SGPC any employee for misconduct, on tablished in an inquiry. It appears .12.2007 of the Sub-Committee mmittee of the SGPC that the Su planation of the appellant that blished in the local newspapers we ding in an inquiry that the appella d defamed the SGPC, the High Cou the impugned order that the appell e SGPC and he had been rightly relie Adverting to the facts of the pr sheet dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P er, to which he submitted a detailed r er was not blindsided by the discip indicates that a statement (Annexur exists, signed by the petitioner, where e proceedings and acknowledged th A perusal of this statement in dings were in fact conducted in the pr forded an opportunity to present his d out that a confessional statement an inquiry. Speaking through Justice ule 4 of the Service Rules that an dismissed from service for bad of misconduct are established in an iry committee. Thus, though the PC may have the power under s made thereunder to terminate the GPC, it can terminate the services t, only when such misconduct is ears from the inquiry report dated tee constituted by the Executive Sub-Committee had accepted the hat the photographs which were s were of his wife. Thus, without a ellant was guilty of conduct which Court could not have taken a view pellant had brought a bad name to relieved from service.” (emphasis added) the present case, it is evident that a xure P-3) was duly served upon the ailed reply (Annexure P-4). Thus, the disciplinary authorities. The record nnexure R-3 in CWP No. 16908 of wherein he expressed full satisfaction the same were conducted in his ent indicates that the disciplinary the presence of the petitioner and he t his defence. Furthermore, it must be ement was made by the petitioner ustice t an bad n an the nder the ices ct is ated tive the ere ut a hich view e to dded) that a n the s, the record 08 of action in his linary nd he ust be itioner PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 (Annexure R liquor, which also stated to Singh, whose that the petiti the above, th to demonstr disciplinary p is made out. 13. 08.06.2024 (A be placed on Chairman, D Sharan Vars follows: “7. In elabor that t whatso case(su applica not ca mentio accept any re brief, applied author Divisio (vide p 12 098-2025 ure R-1 in CWP No. 16908 of 2017 which further supports the findings ated to have been witnessed by anot whose statement (Annexure R-2 in CW petitioner purchased and consumed li ve, this Court is of the considered vie onstrate any prejudice caused to inary proceedings, and no violation of e out. Regarding the petitioner’s cha 024 (Annexure P-16) passed by the A ed on a two-Judge Bench judgment of n, Disciplinary Authority, Rani L Varshney, (2009) 4 SCC 240, whe In our opinion, an order of aff aborate reasons as an order of rev at the order of affirmation nee hatsoever. In fact, the said decisio se(supra) has itself stated that the a plication of mind. Whether there w t can only be disclosed by som entioned in the order of the appella cept the proposition that an order o y reasons at all. That order must co ief, so that one can know whethe plied its mind while affirming t thority. The view we are taking w ivisional Forest Officer v. Madhusu ide para 19), and in Madhya Prade 2017) regarding the consumption of dings of the inquiry. The incident is y another employee, namely Satnam in CWP No. 16908 of 2017) records med liquor in his presence. In light of red view that the petitioner has failed ed to him in the conduct of the ion of the principles of natural justice ’s challenge to the resolution dated the Appellate Authority, reliance ca ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ni Lakshmi Bai KGB v. Jagdish , wherein the Court has observed as f affirmation need not contain as f reversal, but that does not mean need not contain any reasons ecision in Prabhu Dayal Grover's the appellate order should disclose ere was an application of mind or some reasons, at least in brief, pellate authority. Hence, we cannot der of affirmation need not contain st contain some reasons, at least in hether the appellate authority has ng the order of the disciplinary g was also taken by this Court in husudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253 radesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of ion of ent is atnam ecords ght of failed f the ustice dated ce can urt in dish ed as n as ean sons ver's lose d or rief, nnot tain st in has nary rt in 253 n of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 India, Manuf Court 8. In t contain 9. The Bench reporte the jud 10. Un the au minim require must b order o No do (vide p 11. Th order contain unders order appella stating 14. an order of af reasons must that providing arbitrariness 13 098-2025 dia, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 6 anufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union o ourt 1785 (vide para 6), etc. In the present case, since the appe ntain any reaons, it does not show a The purpose of disclosure of reas nch of this Court in the case of S.N ported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that e judicial or quasi-judicial authoritie Unless reasons are disclosed, how e authority has applied its mind or inimizes chances of arbitrariness quirement of the rule of law that s ust be disclosed in a judicial or quas der of affirmation. doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee's case ide para 36) that : " ..The appellate or revisional a order, need not give separate revisional authority agrees with order under challenge." The above observation, in our o der of affirmance need not conta ntained in the order of the origin derstood to mean that even brief re der of affirmance. To take a con pellate authorities can simply dism ating that they agree with the view o As noted above, the Hon’ble Sup r of affirmation need not be as elabora s must be given to show application o oviding reasons is an essential requirem riness and instill confidence in judicial urt 671, siemens Engineering & ion of India, AIR 1976 Supreme appellate authority's order does not w any application of mind. reasons, as held by a Constitution S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India that people must have confidence in rities. , how can a person know whether nd or not? Also, giving of reasons iness. Hence, it is an essential hat some reasons, at least in brief, quasi-judicial order, even if it is an case (supra), it has been observed nal authority, if it affirms such an arate reasons if the appellate or with the reasons contained in the ur opinion, really means that the ontain an elaborate reasoning as riginal authority, but it cannot be ief reasons need not be given in an contrary view would mean that dismiss appeals by one line orders ew of the lower authority.” (Emphasis added) ble Supreme Court has held that while elaborate as an order of reversal, brief tion of mind. It has been emphasized equirement of rule of law to minimize udicial or quasi-judicial authorities. In g & eme not tion ndia e in ther sons ntial rief, s an rved h an e or the the g as t be n an that ders dded) while , brief asized imize ies. In PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30098 the present c 16) passed b dismissed af though brief, directions of CONCLUSI 15. infirmity in petitioner wa (Annexure P the Appellate been caused and it is ev complied wit justice. Conse 16. disposed of. February 0 P.C/Vishnu 14 098-2025 sent case, a perusal of the resolution ssed by the Appellate Authority indi sed after due application of mind, a brief, have been clearly indicated i ns of this Court. LUSION In view of the foregoing dis ty in the order dated 28.05.2015 er was dismissed from service, or in ure P-16), whereby the petitioner’s a pellate Authority. The record does no aused to the petitioner in the conduct is evident that the prescribed pro ed with. Furthermore, there is no viola . Consequently, the present writ petitio Pending miscellaneous applica ed of. ary 02, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable : lution dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P y indicates that the appeal has been ind, and the reasons for dismissal, cated in compliance with the earlier ng discussion, this Court finds no 2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby the or in the resolution dated 08.06.2024 er’s appeal came to be dismissed by oes not disclose any prejudice having nduct of the disciplinary proceedings, d procedure has been substantially o violation of the principles of natural petition stands dismissed. pplications, if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ure P- been issal, earlier no y the .2024 ed by aving dings, ntially atural stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document