1 2025:CGHC:1219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3434 of 2024 1. Amit Babu S/o Thomas C.M. Aged About 23 Years R/o Room No. A- 303 Interns Hostel Aiims, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Through Its Executive Director, Tatibandh, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dean (Student Welfare) All India Institute Of Medical Science, Tatibandh, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. National Medical Commission Through - Director, Undergraduate Medical Education Board, Pocket - 14, Sector - 8, Dwarka, Phase - 1, New Delhi - 77 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Ms Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Akash Verma, Adv. appears on behalf of Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 8/1/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner, who is a MBBS Intern at AIIMS, Raipur, is questioning the order dated 15-5-2024 passed by the Dean – Student Welfare, imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner for his insubordination, indiscipline and wastage of public time. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the Dean – Student Welfare is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order, as there is no reflection in the said order to show that whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been considered by him or not. The impugned order contains disparaging remarks against the petitioner, which will effect the career of the petitioner. She would also submit that the order contains that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority and found that the same is unsatisfactory, but no finding has been recorded in the order impugned in this regard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the AIIMS, ex adverso, would submit that the order has been passed by the Dean in accordance with law, as the show cause notice has been replied by the petitioner, which has duly been considered by the respondent AIIMS. She would further submit that the action has been taken only after consideration of the petitioner’s case by the committee and on the recommendation of the committee the order impugned has been passed. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From plain reading of the order impugned it clearly reflects that there has been no discussion and reasons provided by the Dean. Even no document has been placed on record to establish that on what basis the competent authority has recorded the finding against the petitioner. There is nothing on record as to how the reply of the petitioner has been considered by the authority. 6. In the case of East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others1 the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by 1 (2010) 7 SCC 678 3 the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order. 7. Likewise, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers2, the Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. 8. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 15-5-2024 (Annexure–P/1) passed by the Dean – Student Welfare, AIIMS, Raipur, is quashed. 9. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri 2 (2010) 4 SCC 785 K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.01.08 18:00:21 +0530