P.S. Solanki vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and punishment order passed by the State Government dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P/1). By this order two annual increments of the petitioner are withheld without cumulative effect. Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that initially a show-cause notice dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure P/5) was issued to the petitioner by Police Head Quarter (PHQ). Petition filed his reply. Shri Katare submits that since the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is the State Government, the State Government, (Home Department), issued a show-cause notice dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P/7). The petitioner submitted his detailed reply (Annexure P/8) dated 26.05.2012. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order without considering the reply of the petitioner. He submits that it runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and mandate of CCA Rules.

Prayer is opposed by Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate. He submits that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, a punishment order, commensurate to the misconduct, is passed which does not require any interference.

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

The show-cause notice dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P/7) shows that certain factual allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his reply and put forth his case on merits. Reply of the petitioner shows that petitioner''s defense is based on certain factual averments. In the punishment order, the respondents have reproduced the allegations against the petitioner, referred about the comments obtained from various departmental authorities and then in para 4 stated that petitioner''s reply was not found satisfactory, accordingly, the punishment is inflicted on the petitioner.

The pivotal question is whether the aforesaid course adopted by the respondents is in accordance with law. Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services CCA Rules, 1966 also makes it obligatory that the record of disciplinary proceedings must include the orders on the case together with reasons therefor. This is settled in law that "conclusion" must be based on reasons. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents have considered the allegations against the petitioner, report of various departmental authorities and then opined that the petitioner''s representation is not satisfactory.

In the considered opinion of this court, the finding that petitioner''s representation is not found satisfactory is a "conclusion". No reasons are assigned as to why petitioner''s defense put forth in representation (Annexure P/8) was not found trustworthy or suitable or satisfactory by the respondents. Reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusion. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, emphasized the need for assigning reasons in following words:--

(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 lifeblood 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 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 "rubberstamp 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.

(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.

(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".

In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that assigning reasons is a part and parcel of fair play and principles of natural justice. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot be permitted to stand. For this reason alone, impugned order needs interference.

Matter may be examined from yet another angle. Although minor penalty proceedings treated as summary proceedings yet if charges are factual in nature and reply is also based on factual averments, the Apex Court opined that enquiry must be conducted in the said eventuality. In : (2001) 9 SCC 180 (O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others) the Apex Court opined as under:--

While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.

(Emphasis supplied)

In (2005) 12 SCC 256 (Raj Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Bihar and others) the Apex Court opined as under:--

....There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show-cause notice were, in fact, considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside.

On the basis of aforesaid judgments, in my opinion, respondents have erred in inflicting the punishment without conducting any enquiry. For this reason also, impugned order needs to be set aside. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 12.08.2013 is set aside. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Liberty is reserved for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and has decided matter by examining the decision making process. No Costs.