2025:JHHC:13679 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5555 of 2019 --------- Rajesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Ram Janam Singh, R/o AT+PO, Near Booti School, Booti, P.O. Booti, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi. .... Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, P.O.-Darbhanga House & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. The General Manager (P-NEE), Darbhanga House, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O.-Darbhanga House & P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. The Director Personnel, Darbhanga House, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O.-Darbhanga House & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. .... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Adv. For the Resp.-CCL : M/s. Ranjana Mukherjee, Adv. --------- 06/05.05.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure-6), issued by the 2nd respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of SLP has been rejected by the concerned respondent. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention towards the impugned order and submits that the same is cryptic and no reason has been assigned. 3. For brevity the impugned order is quoted hereinbelow:- “To, Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Accountant Grd.-A, HQ, Accounts. Deptt, CCL, Ranchi. This is reference to your application dated 04.03.2019 and it is hereby informed that your case of SLP for decision was put up before competent authority who, in view of prevalent guidelines in the company is of the opinion that the case of granting SLP to you cannot be considered. Sd./- General Manager (P-NEE) 2025:JHHC:13679 2 CCL, Ranchi.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submits that the Petitioner was initially charge-sheeted and punishment was also imposed and SLP was preferred to the office of Kolkata, the decision has not been taken. However, learned counsel could not demonstrate or defend the order that nothing has been mentioned in the impugned order nor there is any enclosure with regard to the decision of the competent authority/committee. 5. Having regard to the admitted facts rereferred to hereinabove, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 is non-reasoned and none-speaking order and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also well settled principle that the counter-affidavit cannot supplement the reasons given in the impugned order. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision rendered in the case of Mohindhar Singh Gill & Anr. Versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.1 6. Accordingly, on this score alone this writ application requires interference. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations of the Respondent-Coal Company. The fresh order shall be passed within a period of 10 1 1978(1)SCC 405 2025:JHHC:13679 3 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/-