Raj Kishore Parashar vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This is second visit of the petitioner to a Court of law. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.04.2002 before the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 468/2002. The Tribunal by order Annexure P/10 dated 26.4.2002 interfered in the matter on the ground that before passing impugned order effecting recovery of a huge amount, no opportunity or show-cause notice is issued. Consequently, the liberty was reserved to the respondents to issue a show cause notice and proceed further in the matter. Accordingly, by Annexure P/11 dated 23.5.2002 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In reply, vide Annexure P/12 dated 10.6.2002, the petitioner submitted that there is no question of recovery and in explicit made his stand clear by referring to various orders of the higher authorities, interim orders etc. He stated that he was rightly paid the amount in question and the recovery is impermissible. Respondents have passed a final order Annexure P/2 dated 11.3.2004 whereby it is held that that petitioner''s reply is not acceptable and is rejected. It is challenged on the singular ground that in Annexure P/2, no reasons are assigned as to why the petitioner''s stand was not found justiciable.

Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, supported the order and submits that for passing such administrative orders, it was not necessary to assign detailed reasons.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before dealing with the merits of the matter, I deem it apt to quote judgment of the Apex Court reported in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, , which holds the field. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held 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) xxxx.

(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) to (k) xxxxx

(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) xxxxx.

(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) xxxxx.

A bare perusal of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, will make it crystal clear that assigning reasons is part and parcel of fairness and just administrative action which is flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, fairness is held to be integral part of good administration. The reasons are required to be assigned even in administrative orders which affects the rights of a party prejudicially.

In view of aforesaid judgment, it is clear that respondents should have assigned reasons in Annexure P/2 regarding the reply (Annexure P/12) submitted by the petitioner. In absence of assigning reasons, the order Annexure P/2 cannot pass the litmus test laid down by the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra). Accordingly, I am unable to uphold Annexures P/1 and P/2 and they are hereby set aside. I am conscious of the fact that this matter is pending before this Court since 2004 and amount in question has already been recovered. Considering the aforesaid, Annexures P/1 and P/2 are quashed and liberty is reserved to the respondents to take a final decision on the show cause notice after considering the reply of the petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing which the entire proceeding pursuant to show cause notice above against the petitioner shall automatically stand abated and petitioner shall be entitled to get refund of the recovered amount within three months therefrom.

With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petition is allowed. No costs.