Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 837 (TS)

Arjun Anne v. State of Telangana

2020-12-07

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2020
ORDER : B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is as under: "Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or writ of mandamus setting aside the order passed by the Appellate authority confirming the order passed by primary enquiry comprising of stewards of HRC and declare Medication Rules X, XI fixing absolute or strict liability on the trainees & Rule XIII to the extent of its leaving absolute discretion in imposing penalty in excess or more than the penalty fixed in Rule XII of medication rules including Rule 202 and Rule 202 (XVI) of Rules of Racing as illegal, arbitrary, deprivation of livelihood, irrational, violative of article 14, 19(1)(g) R/w 21 of constitution of India and suffers from vide of excessive, unguided, unrestricted power and unchanneled discretion and such and other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case". 2. Heard Mr. M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is a professional trainer of horses. The petitioner worked as a Trainer in several foreign destinations and claims to have several accomplishments to his credit. The Hyderabad Race Club (HRC), respondent No. 4, is incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered bylaws/rules. The horse races are conducted periodically by the HRC. The petitioner has referred to several rules with regard to Registration for Racing, Rules of Betting, Medication Rules, Infringements, Collection and Report of Urine Sample by Qaunti Labs, Lab Report and Request to send for Second Opinion etc. However, there is not much of dispute with regard to these rules. 4. On the allegation that urine samples of seven of the horses trained by the petitioner tested positive due to presence of prohibited substances (cobalt), based on the confirmation report issued by Qaunti Labs and contravention of Rules and similar contravention earlier, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for violation of Medication Rules. The preliminary enquiry was conducted on 08.04.2020 into these charges and the petitioner participated in the preliminary enquiry and it was concluded on the same day. In pursuance of such enquiry, charges were framed on 30.05.2020. Subsequently, the main enquiry was conducted on 01.06.2020 wherein the petitioner participated. Several questions were posed to the petitioner in both the preliminary as well as main enquiry. In pursuance of such enquiry, charges were framed on 30.05.2020. Subsequently, the main enquiry was conducted on 01.06.2020 wherein the petitioner participated. Several questions were posed to the petitioner in both the preliminary as well as main enquiry. After preliminary enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, he filed his detailed explanation. Thereafter, in the final enquiry, the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity for explaining his case. The petitioner was disqualified having found him guilty of violating/contravening Rule 202(i) x (a), xiii, xvi of HRC Rules of Racing. 5. The respondent No. 2 (disciplinary authority), having conducted the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of preliminary enquiry and main enquiry, vide proceedings dated 01.06.2020 came to the conclusion that the petitioner contravened Medication Rules and held that the petitioner is responsible for doping of horses and disqualified the petitioner with immediate effect up to 31.05.2023 invoking powers vested under Rule 29, 40, 41(a)(J), 202 (1) x (a), xiii, xvi of HRC Rules. Thereafter, challenging the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondents No. 3 and the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 15.06.2020. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are illegal, outside jurisdiction and against principles of natural justice. The petitioner apart from challenging the order of disqualification of the original authority, sought to declare the Medication Rules X, XII fixing absolute and strict liability on the trainees and Rule XIII to the extent of it leaving absolute discretion in imposing penalty in excess or more than the penalty fixed in Rule XII of Medical Rules including Rules 202 and 202 (XVI) of the Rules of Racing as illegal, arbitrary and deprivation of livelihood, irrational and unconstitutional. 7. In the counter filed by the respondent No. 4, it is contended that the petitioner was involved in serious offence of doping of horses. The petitioner was previously involved in such instances. The horses trained by the petitioner ran the race. The urine samples of the seven horses, trained by the petitioner, were collected and sent for analysis for cobalt and the samples were found to be containing cobalt presence beyond permissible limits. 8. The petitioner was previously involved in such instances. The horses trained by the petitioner ran the race. The urine samples of the seven horses, trained by the petitioner, were collected and sent for analysis for cobalt and the samples were found to be containing cobalt presence beyond permissible limits. 8. Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel, further submitted that there is no error committed by the original and the appellate authority and in fact, the petitioner should have been disqualified for life for indulging in serious contraventions. However, the authorities have shown leniency by disqualifying him for a temporary period until 31.05.2023. 9. This Court perused the preliminary enquiry report and the final enquiry report. There is no doubt that detailed enquiry was conducted and after framing charges, the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to explain his case. The petitioner personally participated in both the enquiry proceedings. Several questions were posed to the petitioner and answers given by the petitioner were recorded and basing on the information gathered by the authority, report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. 10. However, unfortunately, the order of the disciplinary authority, respondent No. 2, dated 01.06.2020 contains only two pages whereunder the petitioner was disqualified with immediate effect until 31.05.2023. The respondent No. 2 in seven points referred to the conclusions drawn in the enquiry reports submitted by the Stewards of the HRD. Though the disciplinary authority has pointed out that the petitioner has contravened medication rules laid down by HRC Rules of Racing as the samples tested positive for the presence of Cobalt beyond permissible threshold level and the petitioner contravened norms of HRC twice, there are no reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority in its order dated 01.06.2020 and also in the order of the appellate authority passed on 15.06.2020. 11. It can be seen from the record that several questions were posed to the petitioner and he has given answers. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted explanation to the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, who is expected to examine the preliminary enquiry report and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner, should have drawn separate findings/conclusions. Excepting for endorsing the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officers in the preliminary and final enquiry proceedings, the respondent No. 2 did not base its order on detailed reasons and findings. The disciplinary authority, who is expected to examine the preliminary enquiry report and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner, should have drawn separate findings/conclusions. Excepting for endorsing the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officers in the preliminary and final enquiry proceedings, the respondent No. 2 did not base its order on detailed reasons and findings. So also the appellate authority in a slipshod manner passed order confirming the order of disqualification order passed by the disciplinary authority. Unless reasons are properly recorded, it would not be possible for the Court to examine whether the authorities applied its mind and passed order in a fair and transparent manner. Recording of reasons, based on factual matrix, forms essence of principles of natural justice. Justice should not only be done but appear to have been done, which is a principle inherent in the legal system. Unless a party against whom the proceedings are issued is made aware of the reasons, the order, which is bereft of reasons, cannot stand scrutiny of law. The impugned orders are, thus, vitiated for non-recording of reasons. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is, hereby, allowed. The orders, dated 15.06.2020 and 01.06.2020, are set aside. The case is remanded back to the disciplinary authority with a direction that the disciplinary authority must pass a reasoned order dealing with the pros and cons of the evidence produced before the enquiry officer. In case an order is passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner shall be free to challenge the same before the appellate authority in the same terms that he had challenged the previous orders passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority shall equally pass a reasoned order. It is, hereby, clarified that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority, he shall be free to challenge that order before this Court. It is further clarified that, during the complete process mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner shall be kept under suspension so as to prevent him from training any other horses. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.