UNION OF INDIA v. GAJU BHAGWAN — 1982 DIGILAW 151 (GUJ)

N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) [ His Lordships after observing the facts of both cases further observed: ]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) BOTH the appeals were taken up together with the concurrence of the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides because common questions of law were arising in both these appeals viz. whether the statutory Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 required the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities to set out the grounds and whether the principles of natural justice require as a matter of inevitability that the reasons must be stated and communicated also to the delinquent concerned and non-compliance with that vitiated the orders. ( 3 ) IT is again to be noted that in these two inquiries there is no question of the concerned delinquents being not given proper opportunity to defend. ( 4 ) THE first question to be determined by me in these two appeals is whether this particular interpretation of the rules in question is correct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) IN the cases on hand there is no dispute that the elaborate Inquiry Officers reports were given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority when he issued the show cause notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) IF the interpretation of the above-mentioned statutory rules as made by the learned appellate Judge cannot be sustained the law declared by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned STATE OF ASSAM V. BIMAL KUMAR PANDIT AIR 1963 S. C. 1612 shall squarely be attracted In that case the Supreme Court very clearly observed that they did not think the failure to state expressly that the dismissing authority has accepted the findings recorded in the report against the delinquent Officer justifies the conclusion that the notice given in that behalf did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer under Art. 311 (2 ). The Supreme Court also observed that on receiving the notice in that particular case it must have been obvious to the respondent (delinquent) that the findings recorded against him by the inquiring officer had been accepted by the appellants. . . The Supreme Court also observed that on receiving the notice in that particular case it must have been obvious to the respondent (delinquent) that the findings recorded against him by the inquiring officer had been accepted by the appellants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 7 ) THE Appellate Court below however again erroneously thought that under thestatutory rules those reasons which resulted into the communication of the sentence Ex. 47 also must be specifically communicated. Rule 12 of the Rules does not say so. All that the said Rule 12 requires is Order made by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the railway servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry if any held by the disciplinary authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . "this is pertaining to the inquiry held by the disciplinary authority itself. The said rule 12 then proceeds further to state as follows: ". . . Where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of the findings of the disciplinary authority together with brief reasons for its disagreement if any with findings of the inquiring authority (unless they have already been supplied to him) and also a copy of the advice if any given by the Commission and where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance. " ( 8 ) SO what is mandatory to be given where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority is a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of the finding of the disciplinary authority. Reasons are to be briefly stated if there is disagreement but not otherwise. So I hold that the statutory rules do not require that the disciplinary authority must again record briefly the reasons over again and communicate those reasons to the delinquent concerned. On the contrary the rules require the giving of reasons only when there is disagreement. In the instant case there is no question of any disagreement whatsoever. So the lower appellate Court has clearly erred in holding that the reasons Ex. On the contrary the rules require the giving of reasons only when there is disagreement. In the instant case there is no question of any disagreement whatsoever. So the lower appellate Court has clearly erred in holding that the reasons Ex. 62 recorded by the disciplinary authority after giving of the second show cause notice were not given and the before there was non-compliance of the statutory mandatory requirement and therefore the whole edifice cracked down. If the statutory rules are not there such communications falls within the realm of the principles of natural justice and fair play and nothing further. ( 9 ) MERE allegation that natural justice has not been meted out is not sufficient nor is it sufficient to say that those principles are violated. There is nothing intrinsically sacrosanct about the principles of natural justice. They are all incidents of a fair play and whoever wants a Court of Law including a High Court to act on this alleged non-compliance has further to prove that the Alleged non-compliance has resulted into prejudice to his cause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 10 ) IN the above view of the matter I find that in both the cases there was the general compliance with the principles of natural justice and no prejudice is alleged or shown to have been occasioned to the concerned railway official. ( 11 ) MR. Mehta the learned advocate who appeared for the concerned respondents in these appeals however invited my attention to certain decisions which dealt with the point which had found favour with the Courts below. He firstly invited my attention to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. SHASHI BHUSHAN BISWAS AIR 1970 CAL. 545 Rule 1718 of the Railway Establishment Code Vol. 1 analogous to the rule before us was on the envil of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. They held that Rule 1718 was mandatory and it went beyond the requirements of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and required the punishing authority to apply its mind to the materials on the record over again even where he may agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. They held that Rule 1718 was mandatory and it went beyond the requirements of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and required the punishing authority to apply its mind to the materials on the record over again even where he may agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It was further observed that where the punishing authority does not examine the findings of the Inquiry Officer upon which the employee was found guilty and does not record his own findings separately on charges his order gets vitiated for non-compliance with R. 1713. ( 12 ) MR. Mehta had also invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR V. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS AIR 1970 S. C. 1302. The two judges of the Supreme Court in that case found that the case before them disclosed a disturbing state of affairs. The case was of cancellation of a licence and before a licence once validly granted could be taken back the aggrieved party has got a right of audience. It is in this context where there is only first document coming up in the field the learned Judges observed that. The appellants had a right to carry on their business and as they held a licence to carry on their business they could be deprived of their right by an executive order supported by good and adequate reasons. It was further observed: It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him: it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just and for ensuring that and he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. The Judges further observed that if the order was subject to appeal the necessity to record reasons was greater for without recorded reasons the appellate authority had no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just. ( 13 ) THE third decision which was put into service was the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of THE TESTEELS LTD. V. N. M. DESAI 10 GLR 622 which was relied upon by Honble Mr. ( 13 ) THE third decision which was put into service was the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of THE TESTEELS LTD. V. N. M. DESAI 10 GLR 622 which was relied upon by Honble Mr. Justice M. P. Thakkar J. (as he than was) in the Special Civil Application No. 794 of 1974 decided by him on 28-10-74 and also followed in the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of B. R. ACHARYA V. STATE OF GUJARAT 1979 20 (2) GLR 557. Now what has been observed in these individual cases is based on the facts of those individual cases. There as it has been rightly said and quite often that principles of natural justice cannot be confined in a strait jacket formula and compendiously these principles can be stated to be principles of fair play and justice. What is required in one case may not be required in the facts and circumstances of another cases. As for example in the case of Mahabir Prasads case (supra) person likely to be prejudicially affected could not know if the reasons were not recorded how the mind of the authority worked. ( 14 ) IN the case on hand there was full fledged elaborate long drawn out inquiry in both the cases rounded of by a detailed inquiry report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority in black and white. This gave enough indication that the inquiry was not a farce or only a make believe but was seriously undertaken and executed. The Supreme Court had therefore as occasion to deal with these principles in the case of KRISHNA CHANDRA TANDON V. THE UNION OF INDIA AIR 1974 S. C. 1589. In that case after the Inquiry Officers report was received by the Commissioner he sent a copy to the appellant I. T. O. who was requested to make his comments thereon though in fact this was unnecessary. The appellant made his comments on the report of the Enquiry Officer and after taking them into consideration the Commissioner informed the appellant by his order dated 5-5-1965 that he had provisionally come to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were correct and therefore he was calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. In that case it was held that it was not necessary for the Commissioner to make a precise summary of the evidence against the appellant and furnish him the reasons or grounds for arriving at the provisional conclusion when he issued the show cause notice on 5-5-1955. ( 15 ) IN the case of JOHN MARTIN V. STATE OF W. B. AIR 1975 S. C. 775 it was succinctly observed:"all that is necessary is that there should be a real and proper consideration by the Government. It is not necessary that the order of the state Government must be a reasoned order. " ( 16 ) THE judgment in Bimal Kumar Pandit s case (supra) was again approved by the Supreme Court in the case of TARA CHAND V. DELHI MUNICIPALITY AIR 1977 S. C. 567. ( 17 ) SO my conclusions in these two appeals are as follow: (I) If the statutory rules require that the disciplinary authority and or the appellate authority must record their reasons in support of their findings at various stages that has to be complied with both in letter and spirit. (II) If the statutory rules are silent about the method and manner of working of quasi judicial authorities all that is to be ensured is that nothing has been done as would rob the person likely to be prejudicially affected of his having a fair deal in the matter. (III) As and when a cry is raised about non-compliance of the principles of natural justice it is not sufficient for the claimant simply to allege that the principles of natural justice were not complied with or followed. It has to be further shown by pleading and proof that this non-compliance has materially interfered with his having a fair deal or a fair play. (IV) A minor deviation here or there is not sufficient to upset a solemn inquiry of quasi judicial character unless it is success fully established that and resulted in material prejudice to the delinquent concerned. ( 18 ) IN the above view of the matter I find that both the Courts below had gone wrong firstly on the point of interpretation of the statutory rules and secondly on the point of the orders being non speaking orders and their having presumably and invariably caused prejudice to these delinquents. ( 18 ) IN the above view of the matter I find that both the Courts below had gone wrong firstly on the point of interpretation of the statutory rules and secondly on the point of the orders being non speaking orders and their having presumably and invariably caused prejudice to these delinquents. ( 19 ) THE result is that both the appeals are allowed by dismissing the plaintiffs suits. However the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Appeals dismissed. .