Satya Narayan Sharma vs State of M.P. and Others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order Annexure P/1 dated 5.6.2006 whereby an amount of Rs. 70,000/- is directed to be recovered from the petitioner. Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, by criticizing the said order, submits that the petitioner was served with show-cause notices Annexure P/12 and R/10. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to those show-cause notices by Annexure P/13. It is stated that in the reply the petitioner has dealt with the averments of the show-cause notices and put-forth his defence in a categorical manner. Learned counsel submits that in the impugned order no reasons are assigned as to why the defence taken by the petitioner is not found trustworthy. Apart from this, by placing reliance on various clauses of Annexure P/2 dated 19.6.2000, Shri Singh submits that petitioner was under no obligation to undertake the exercise for which he is inflicted with recovery. He submits that other authorities were responsible for the purpose of implementation of seed sale scheme and by no stretch of imagination, petitioner can be inflicted with recovery for alleged irregularities/mistakes which were committed by somebody else.

Per contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State, supported the order passed by the authorities.

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

In the show-cause notices aforesaid, certain allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a detailed reply Annexure P/13 and specifically dealt with those allegations. In the impugned order, there is no whisper about the defence taken by the petitioner and no reasons are assigned by the said authorities as to why the petitioner''s defence was not acceptable to them. There is no iota of discussion on the reply submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order entails civil consequences and is an adverse order. Thus, the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice was to assign reasons on the reply filed by the petitioner. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, has emphasized the need for assigning reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads 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 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 "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.

(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".

The reasons are required to be assigned to show that there is proper application of mind and to ensure transparency and to eradicate the possibility of arbitrariness in the decision making process. In the impugned order since no reasons are assigned, it is required to be set aside for this reason alone. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) in absence of reasons and for not following the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. I do accordingly. The appellate authority affirmed the order Annexure P/1 by communication dated 23rd January, 2007. This appellate order also suffers from same infirmity and does not contain any reason. This cryptic order runs contrary to the mandate and statutory requirement of Rule 27 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Accordingly, this order is also set aside. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. However, since the interference is made because the respondents have not followed ''due process'', the liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner and in the event they decide to proceed against the petitioner, they are directed to proceed and complete the process within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Considering the fact that this is a 2006 matter, the respondents are given six months'' time within which they have to proceed and complete the proceedings, failing which the show-cause notices and proceedings against the petitioner shall stand automatically abated. No cost.