Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 551 (JHR)

Shivjatan Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2021-07-27

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment as contained in Memo No.274/Ra. Ka. dated 02.02.2010 issued by respondent No.2; whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 02.02.2010. The petitioner has further assailed the appellate order as contained in Memo No.1572/Sa. Sha dated 30.12.2010, passed by respondent No.3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the memorial filed by the petitioner was also rejected. 3. Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the appellate order (Annexure-9) and submits that the appellate authority has not given any reason, whatsoever, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has filed an extensive appeal raising several grounds before the appellate authority but the appellate authority, in a cursory manner, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Ms. Pandey fairly submits the appellate authority should re-visit its order and pass a fresh order after giving reasons and considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. 4. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent State supports the impugned order of the termination and further submits that there is no procedural irregularity; however, he could not satisfy this Court with respect to the appellate order which prima facie appears to be a non-speaking and non reasoned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that the department has followed the procedure in terminating the petitioner; as such this is not a case of procedural irregularity. However, after perusing the appellate order it appears that the appellate authority has simply referred about the inquiry report and the impugned order and held that he is satisfied with the finding of the disciplinary authority; but not even in a single line, he has given any opinion on the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. From record it further appears that the petitioner has filed a detailed representation containing several grounds; however, none of the grounds have been taken care of by the appellate authority. 6. The highlighting need of reasons in any order is condition precedent. From record it further appears that the petitioner has filed a detailed representation containing several grounds; however, none of the grounds have been taken care of by the appellate authority. 6. The highlighting need of reasons in any order is condition precedent. Reference in this regard may be made to the landmark judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in the case of Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union & Ors. reported in (1971) 1 ALL ER 1148) in which the Court observed that giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted herein below: “…… It is now well settled that a statutory body, which is entrusted by statute with a discretion, must act fairly. It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as administrative on the other hand, or what you will. Still it must act fairly. It must, in a proper case, give a party a chance to be heard : see Re K (H)(an infant) per Lord Parker CJ in relation to immigration officers; and R v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex parte Benaim by us in relation to the gaming board. The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That is established by Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is a landmark in modern administrative law." Further, in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt & Ors. v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department & Ors. reported in ( AIR 1980 SC 1 ), the Apex court also quoted with approval the legal maxim Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex, which means reason is the soul of law and when reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law. In State of West Bengal V. Atul Krishna Shaw ( AIR 1990 SC 2205 ), the Apex Court reiterated that giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. In State of West Bengal V. Atul Krishna Shaw ( AIR 1990 SC 2205 ), the Apex Court reiterated that giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, thus, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. 7. Again in the case of Jawahar Lal Singh versus Naresh Singh and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 222 , the aforesaid principle has been reiterated at paragraph 3 which is quoted hereunder under: “3. ………………………………………………. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court also shows that all the reasons on the basis of which the whole of the prosecution evidence has been discarded is not so simple or reasons so good that they do not require examination. Under these circumstances therefore without going into the merits we feel that it would be better that the matter be examined by the learned judges of the High Court so that we may have the advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which weighed with the learned trial court in discarding the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents.” After going through the aforesaid decisions it can be said that reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also for a valid discipline for the tribunal or quasi judicial for itself. The statement of reasons thus, forms one of the essentials of justice. The authority must know that reason in an order is required as the right to reason is a fact of natural Justice 8. In the instant case, the appellate authority has simply noted the documents and held that he is satisfied with the finding of the inquiry officer as well as with the order of disciplinary authority but failed to give any reason; even in a single line, or any opinion on the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the various judicial pronouncements this Court is of the firm opinion that the appellate authority shall revisit its order. 9. Consequently, without interfering with the order of punishment, the appellate order as contained in memo no.1572/ Sa. Sha. dated 30.12.2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the various judicial pronouncements this Court is of the firm opinion that the appellate authority shall revisit its order. 9. Consequently, without interfering with the order of punishment, the appellate order as contained in memo no.1572/ Sa. Sha. dated 30.12.2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority-respondent No.3, who shall pass a fresh order after recording reasons without being prejudiced with its earlier order. It goes without saying that since the petitioner is out of service; as such, fresh order must be passed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall be re-instated in service. The petitioner is also at liberty to file the copy of memo of appeal which is annexed as Annexure-8 to this writ application before the concerned respondent for convenience. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application stands partly allowed.