Madhav Singh vs The State of M.P.

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the punishment order dated 18.12.2015, the appellate order dated 13.04.2016 and the order dated 26.08.2016, whereby the mercy appeal of the petitioner is dismissed by the department.

In short, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure-P/10). This order is followed by a show-cause notice dated 26.11.2015 (AnnexureP/11). In this notice, three allegations were made against the petitioner and it was proposed as to why one increment of the petitioner should not be stopped without cumulative effect. In turn, the petitioner filed a detailed reply along with 22 documents (Annexure-P/12). Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 18.12.2015 and inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The suspension period of the petitioner was treated as suspension; meaning thereby, the petitioner will not get any pay and allowances other than subsistence allowance for the said period. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the punishment order before the Appellate Authority and learned Director General of Police, both the Authorities rejected his appeal and mercy appeal respectively.

Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that the petitioner???s reply was pregnant with factual defence and documents in support thereof. The Disciplinary Authority has neither conducted any inquiry to examine the correctness of the allegations/defence nor assigned any reason as to why petitioner''s defence is not acceptable. The Appellate Authorities committed similar errors.

Prayer is opposed by Shri Yadav, learned P.L. for the State by contending that principles of natural justice are duly followed. In cases of minor punishment, it is not necessary to conduct full fledged departmental inquiry. There is no flaw in the decision making process.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Against the show-cause notice, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply which contains his defence on merits. He also filed 22 documents in support of his defence. The Disciplinary Authority reproduced the stand of the petitioner to some extent in the order dated 18.12.2015 and then drew conclusion that ???petitioner''s reply is not found as satisfactory???. The spinal issues are whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, a regular departmental inquiry was required to be conducted and whether the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authorities are in consonance with law ?

This is trite law that judicial review of departmental inquiry is limited to the extent of examining whether the decision making process is in accordance with law or not. [See: 1999 (1) SCC 759 (Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra)].

Rule 16 of CCA Rules prescribes a summary procedure for imposition of minor penalty. However, Rule 16(1)(b) makes it clear that under certain circumstances, an inquiry may be conducted as per Rule 14 of CCA Rules. The ancillary question is : whether in the present case, a full fledged inquiry was required to be conducted ? This point is no more res integra. In 2001 (9) SCC 180 (O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others), the Apex Court opined that even in case of minor penalty, an opportunity has to be given to delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. If the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry should also be called for. The Apex Court emphasized that this is the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with. As noticed, in the present case, the petitioner has not only denied the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice, but also advanced his defence supported by documents. Thus, in this factual backdrop, the respondents were not justified in not conducting inquiry and directly imposing the punishment.

The punishment order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny for yet another reason. The Disciplinary Authority has recorded a conclusion that the petitioner''s defence is not satisfactory. However, no reasons are assigned as to why he reached to such a conclusion. Reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusions cannot be permitted to stand. The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associate Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Masood Khan and other, laid down the importance of assigning reasons. The relevant portion is as under: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants'' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons'' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

The appellate orders also suffer from similar infirmity. The same are not in consonance with Rule 27 of CCA Rules which mandates that the Appellate Authorities should examine the decision making process to ensure it is as per principles of natural justice. The aspect of quantum of punishment etc. is also required to be seen. The Appellate Authorities have failed to notice the violation of principles of natural justice.

Resultantly, the punishment order and appellate orders aforesaid are liable to be axed. Resultantly, the orders dated 18.12.2015, 13.04.2016 and 26.08.2016 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law by taking into account the observations made hereinabove. Petition is allowed.