Jeet Narain vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Others

B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.—These two writ petitions arise out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Jeet Narain by the Railway authorities. The first writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11.1997 passed in Original Application No. 461 of 1989. Under the said judgment the Tribunal has issued following directions:

(a) Fresh departmental enquiry be conducted against the Jeet Narain, qua the charge of forged casual labour card being submitted by him.

(b) Employee be reinstated pending enquiry.

(c) A cost of Rs. 25,000/- be paid by the employer concerned.

The Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition suspended the payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- vide order dated 26.2.1998 however it was directed that the other two directions issued by the Tribunal be carried out. The Union of India, therefore after reinstating the petitioner proceeded with the departmental enquiry. After the enquiry proceedings were completed, an order was passed by the competent authority removing the petitioner from service dated 23.3.2000. It was recorded that the petitioner was guilty of filing a forged casual labour card and, therefore, not entitled to be continued in service.

In between various original applications were filed by the employee before the Tribunal for the purposes of challenging the proceedings themselves. The original applications were rejected. The order so passed by the Tribunal was also challenged before this Court. The writ petition was also dismissed.

Against the order dated 23.3.2000, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 414 of 2000 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.1.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has the remedy of statutory appeal and, therefore, he may avail the same. Accordingly the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed under an order dated 10.4.2003. This gave rise to the Original Application No. 1103 of 2003 wherein the employee challenged the order dated 23.3.2000 and dated 10.4.2003. The said orders have been questioned on various grounds and pleas including the plea that there has been violation of principles of natural justice in the departmental proceeding and that the petitioner has not been afforded full and fair opportunity of hearing. It was also contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 10.4.2003 did not contain sufficient reasons for dismissing the appeal and was, therefore, illegal.

The Original Application No. 1103 of 2003 has been dismissed by the Tribunal under the impugned order dated 7.12.2006 for the reasons recorded in the order. The contention of the petitioner qua the appellate order being not supported by reasons has been turned down the Tribunal after recording that the Tribunal has gone through the appellate order and has found that it contains sufficient facts and grounds for rejection of the appeal.

It is against this order of the Tribunal that writ petition No. 12766 of 2007 has been filed by Jeet Narain, the employee.

We have heard Shri S.K. Pandey on behalf of the employee, Shri Jeet Narain and Shri S.K. Rai and Shri Shitla Sahai on behalf of Union of India in both the writ petition.

On behalf of the petitioner it has again been contended before us that the proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and various facts including the correspondence entered into between the employee and the railway authorities have been referred to. Lastly it was contended, before us that the Tribunal has misread the appellate order while recording the finding that the order under challenge contained sufficient reasons. On behalf of Union of India/Railways the contentions so raised has been disputed and with regards to the last plea that the appellate order does not contain any reason, attempt was made to take the Court through the appellate order so as to support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal

We may deal with the last issue raised by the employee first namely that the order dated 10.4.2003 contains no reason in support of its final order. We have gone through the entire order. From the order it is noticed that only the development which had taken place from time to time including the filing of the Original Application, Writ Petition and order passed thereon, no other reasons have been recorded for the purposes of arriving at the conclusion that the appeal has to be dismissed. The only paragraph of the impugned order which can be termed to be the reasons for dismissing the appeal reads as follows:

Is Prakar Uprokt Vivran Ko Drishti Mein Rakh Kar, Prastut Appeal Dinank 22.1.2003 Ke Sandarbh Mein Sampurna Prakaran Evam Appeal Ka Bhali Bhanti Aviokan Karne Par Is Nishkarsh Par Pahuncha Hoon Ki Shri Jeet Narain Ne Apni Appeal Mein Aisa, Koi Nava Tathya Nahin Prastut Kiya Hai Jinse Uske Uper Lagaye Gaye Aarop Se Kisi Prakar Ki Chhoot Ki Ggunjaish Banti Ho. Shri Jeet Narain Dwara Jali Casual Labour Card Prastut Kar Naukri Pvapt Karne Ka Tarika Ek Saghanya Apradh Hai Jo Ki Janch Prakriya PunHayr, Siddh Hua Hai. Atah Appeal Nirast Ki Jati Hai. Dated 10.4.2003

Arun Kumar Vari. Ma. Vi. Abhiyanta Ka.Vi./U.M. Re/Allahabad Appeliye Adhikari.

Reasons are links between the facts and the findings-recorded. In absence of reasons the order passed cannot be sustained. Reasons disclose the basis on which the authority concerned comes to a definite opinion/conclusion in the matter.

It is settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass A speaking and reasoned order. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Apex Court has observed as under:

Every such action may be informed by reason and if follows that an act uninformed by reason is arbitrary, the rule of law contemplates governance by law and not by humour, whim or caprice of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law that "be you ever so high, the laws are above you." This is what a man in power must remember always.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 2 SCC 480 , the Apex Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational fact for into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by the public interest. Same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, and Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others,

In State of State of West Bengal Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw and Another, the Supreme Court observed that "giving of reason is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review."

In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as it is now regarded as one of the principles of 1 natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision.

In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India and another, the Apex Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne-out from the record. The Court further observed that "reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for these erection and the actual conclusions. They would also administer how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and there rational nexus and syntheses with the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Lest it may not be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violate Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21."

Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna and Others, Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others, Similar view has been taken by this Court, in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, In Vasant D. Bhavsar Vs. Bar Council of India and Others, the Apex Court held that an authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusions are based. Similar view has been reiterated in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 440 Secretary, Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers Government of India Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. International Trading Co. and Another,

Having examined the appellate order as well as the law settled by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in recording a finding that the impugned appellate order contains sufficient reasons for the conclusions arrived at. In view of the aforesaid conclusion we set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.4.2003 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal dated 7.12.2006 and remand the appeal to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration afresh strictly in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned speaking order for the conclusions arrived at after considering the grounds raised in the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within two months from the date a certified copy of his order is filed before the authority.

So far as the first writ petition filed by the employer is concerned we may record that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where there are allegations that an employee has filed a forged document for the purposes of his personal benefit and the Court for technical reasons finds that the enquiry held was defective and, therefore, directs holding of a fresh enquiry, it was not appropriate to direct payment of compensation to the employee. We have, therefore, have no hesitation to record that the directions issued by the Tribunal providing compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to an employee charged with preparation of forged documents was legally not justified. Accordingly the nail of the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11,1997 in so far as it directs payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the employee is hereby quashed.

Both the writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made herein above.