CHAIRMAN, D.A., RANI LAKSHMI BAI K.G.BANK versus JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 26-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009) 5 S.C.R. 326 
., 
A 
CHAIRMAN, D.A., RANI LAKSHMI BAI K.G.BANK 
._ 
v. 
JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1921 of 2009) 
-
8 
MARCH 26, 2009 
(. 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND B.SUDERSHAN 
REDDY, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Order of affirmation - Appellate authority affirming order 
of disciplinary authority - Requirement of reasons to be 
recorded - HELD: It cannot be accepted as a proposition that 
an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all -
D The order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that 
> 
one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its 
mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority -
In the instant case, since the appellate authority's order does 
not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of 
E mind - High Court rightly set aside the order of appellate 
authority but it should not have set aside the order of 
disciplinary authority- The judgment of the High Court to the 
extent it has set aside the order of the disciplinary authority 
is set aside - Matter remitted to the appellate authority to 
F decide the appeal filed by employee afresh in accordance with 
'# . 
law after affording him an opportunity of hearing and also by 
a speaking order. 
Divisional Forest Officer vs. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 
(2) SC 253; Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 
G AIR 1966 SC 671 and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing 
Co. Ltd. vs. Union oflndia, AIR 1976 SC 1785, relied on. 
State Bank of Bikaner & Haipur & Others vs. Prabhu 
Dayal Grover (1995) 6 SCC 279; S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union 
H 
326 
--... 
-.. 
CHAIRMAN, D.A., RANI LAKSHMI BAI K.G.BANK v. 
327 
JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY AND ORS. 
of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and State of Madras vs. 
A 
Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1995) s sec 219 
(1990) 4 sec 594 
1966 SC 1827 
JT 2008 (2) SC 253 
AIR 1966 SC 671 
AIR 1976 SC 1785 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
para 7 
para 10 
para 13 
para 8 
para 8 
para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1921 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.07 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 
No.2868/2004. 
B 
c 
D 
Dhruv Mehta, T.S. Sabasish for (K.L. Mehta) for the 
E 
Appellant. 
Ajay Veer Singh (for Dr. Vipin Gupta) for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
F 
2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and 
order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature G 
at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2868 of 2004, 
whereby and whereunder the High Court has allowed the writ 
petition and quashed the order dated 23.4.2003 passed by the 
Disciplinary Authority and the resolution of the Board of 
Directors dated 4.9.2003 as communicated by Board's letter H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 
A dated 3.10.2003. 
3. It appears that there was some allegation against 
respondent No.1 on the basis of which he was charge-sheeted; 
an enquiry was held and he was found guilty and he was given 
B the punishment of fixing his pay scale at Rs. 7780/- by reducing 
the increment of time scale by 15 under regulation 38(1) (Kha-
11) of Chapter IV of the Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank 
Officers and Employees Service Rules, 2000 (for short 'the . 
Rules'). 
C 
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the 
D 
Disciplinary Authority dated 23.4.2003, respondent No.1 filed 
an appeal before the appellate authority (Board of Directors) 
on 13.6.2003 which was dismissed by the appellate authority 
on 4.9.2003 without giving any reasons whatsoever. 
5. Aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority 
dated 4.9.2003, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 
6. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the 
E writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the orders 
of the appellate authority and disciplinary authority on the 
ground that the order of the appellate authority dated 4.9.2003 
did not contain any reasons. 
-
4 . 
--
F 
. 7. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the 
appellant relied on a decision of this Court in the case of State 
"# ' 
G 
H 
Bank of Bikaner & Haipur & Others vs. Prabhu Dayal Grover 
reported in (1995) 6 sec 279 and contended that an order of 
affirmation does not require any reasons. 
8. In our opinion, an order of affirmat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.