SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is, 'whether the practice of merely communicating the operative portion of an order and not the complete orders along with reasons (If any) is justified in law.' The Facts and the Decision

(2.) The petitioner was class four employee in Ghaziabad Judgeship. He was dismissed from service on 18.8.2000. He filed an appeal under Rule 7 of the U. P. Court Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976 (The Rules). This appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Judge. The petitioner was informed about dismissal of his appeal by the letter dated 6.8.2001. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri R. K. Srivastava counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Sudhir Agrawal for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The letter dated 6.8.2001 merely informs the petitioner that his appeal has been dismissed but neither the reasons for the order are disclosed, nor the reasoned order has been sent along with the letter. According to Sri Agrawal, it is the practice to communicate the result of the order and reasons are never communicated, unless the Court so directs.