When Several Issues Arise For Being Answered, Deciding Only One Single Point While Not Dealing With Others Is Fundamental Flaw: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High Court ordering a remand to the School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that when several issues arise for being answered by a Court in the facts of a given case, disposal thereof ought to be preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues with reasons rather than focusing on just one decisive point. The Apex Court held that the Bombay High Court faltered in deciding only one single point while not dealing with the others and this was a fundamental flaw.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High Court ordering a remand to the School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service upon quashing of the final order of dismissal from service.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “Law is pretty well-settled that when several issues arise for being answered by a Court in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal thereof ought to be preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues with reasons rather than the decision of the Court focusing on just one decisive point. This approach, apart from ensuring that all issues are considered providing clarity and assuring some sort of a finality, would respect the rights of the litigants to a comprehensive decision; also, if an appeal were carried from such decision, the appellate court would be benefitted by a reasoned decision of the original court.”
AOR Amol B. Karande represented the Appellant while Advocate Satyajit A. Desai represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Tribunal in 2019 had set aside an order of the first respondent dismissing the appellant from service and granted reinstatement together with consequential benefits to her. In the impugned order, the High Court considered a solitary point raised on behalf of the first respondent, i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into all the records and proceedings, more particularly the resolution authorising the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings against the appellant. Upon recording a satisfaction that the Tribunal needs to revisit the matter, and without looking into any other point, expressed the view that a remand was indeed called for. It was accordingly ordered, while quashing the Tribunal’s aforesaid order.
The appellant applied for a review of the order, contending that the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated had been conducted in gross breach of the principles of natural justice. The High Court’s attention was sought to be drawn to the factual position that cross-examination of the main witness of the management was in progress, and it was deferred till the next date; however, the inquiry officer abruptly closed the proceedings without granting the opportunity to the appellant to complete cross-examination of the said witness as well as the other witnesses. The review petition was rejected. The order allowing the writ petition and the order dismissing the review petition were the subject matter of challenge in the appeals.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on its consideration of only the sole point. “Even if the Secretary of the first respondent were authorized to draw up proceedings against the appellant by issuing charge-sheet, whether or not the inquiry suffered from breach of principles of natural justice, as claimed, and also as to whether the findings of the Tribunal were justified, ought to have engaged the High Court’s due consideration”, it added.
As per the Bench, the High Court faltered in deciding only one single point while not dealing with the others, which was a fundamental flaw vitiating its order dated September 5, 2024. Setting aside the orders impugned in the appeals, the Bench ordered remand of the writ petition to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the claims and defences of the parties.
Considering that the appellant had reached the age of superannuation and there was no question of her reinstatement in service, the Bench held, “...the primary questions that would necessarily arise for decision before the High Court are whether: (i) the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the disciplinary action taken by the first respondent against the appellant and (ii) the appellant would be entitled to back wages as well as retiral benefits, should the first question be decided against the first respondent.”
“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to assign the writ petition to the roster Bench for its consideration and disposal in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months of such assignment”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Hemlata Eknath Pise v. S Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 147)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Amol B. Karande, Advocates B Lakshmi Pallesh, Akshda, Ashutosh Shrivastava, Manoj Ramkrushna Shete
Respondent: Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Sachin Patil, Parth Johri, Sachin Singh, Pratik Kumar Singh, Shashank Upadhyay, Madhur Duggal, Sanchit Agrahari, AOR Anagha S. Desai, Narendar Rao Taneer, Advocate M. Harshini, AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam, Advocates Naman Tandon, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande