Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2839 (ALL)

VEER SINGH CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-08-13

B.K.NARAYANA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for any counter affidavit. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the punishment order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Jhansi, by which the petitioner has been reverted to the lowest grade in the basic pay scale of 5200-20200. The only ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order is that the punishment order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of enquiry report dated 23.10.2008 after rejecting the petitioner’s objection filed by him against the enquiry report as inadmissible without assigning any reason. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before holding that the petitioner’s objection was without any force, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to have recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. Failure of the respondent No. 2 to give any reasons in his order in support of his finding that the petitioner’s objection was without any force has totally vitiated his order. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is based on cogent material and supported by valid reasons and hence deserves no interference. 6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The record shows that the petitioner while posted as Revenue Clerk in tehsil Moth district Jhansi was charge-sheeted on 4.10.2006. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 20.11.2006 refuting the charges made against him. The enquiry officer appointed by the respondent No. 2 to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner submitted his report before the respondent No. 2 on 29.6.2007. Subsequently additional charge-sheet dated 3.1.2008 was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.2.2008. The inquiry officer submitted his final report on 23.10.2008 holding the charges against the petitioner to be proved. The copy of the enquiry report dated 23.10.2008 was served upon the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 17.1.2009 requiring the petitioner to file his reply/objection to the enquiry report. The inquiry officer submitted his final report on 23.10.2008 holding the charges against the petitioner to be proved. The copy of the enquiry report dated 23.10.2008 was served upon the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 17.1.2009 requiring the petitioner to file his reply/objection to the enquiry report. The petitioner duly submitted his reply before the respondent No. 2 which runs into six pages along with his letter dated 28.1.2009, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. In his reply the petitioner raised several objections in regard to the manner in which the enquiry officer had conducted the enquiry against him. After receiving the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order imposing major penalty on the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent No. 2 considered and rejected the petitioner’s objection against the enquiry report by a single sentence that the same had no force hence it was not admissible. The impugned order does not disclose any reason as to why the respondent No. 2 did not find any force in the objection submitted by the petitioner against the report of the enquiry officer. The manner in which the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order shows total non-application of mind. 8. Law is settled that a decision arrived at by any authority without giving any reason is a totally arbitrary decision. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court that giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Reasons introduce clarity in an order and indicate an application of mind. 9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning. M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, 1971 (1) All ER 1148 observed that “the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. ”In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), it was observed that “failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. “Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. ”In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), it was observed that “failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. “Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 10. Learned Standing Counsel has failed to show that the respondent No. 2 has given any reasons in the impugned order for his conclusion that the objection filed by the petitioner against the inquiry was without any force. Since the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the petitioner’s objection filed by him against the report of the enquiry officer dated 23.10.2008 which was the basis for passing of the impugned punishment order without assigning any reason and without any application of mind the same is liable to be set-aside. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law after considering the petitioner’s objection to the enquiry report and other material on record within a period of three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. ————