AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent, finally heard.
The petitioners are aggrieved by similar orders dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby a punishment of stoppage of three annual increments without cumulative effect is inflicted on the petitioners.
Indisputably, the facts of the case are that by similar show cause notices dated 03.10.2019, the petitioners were directed to show cause as to why they have not given proper attention towards their duties and have not taken steps to enhance the strength of the school thereby violating the Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules. In turn, the petitioners preferred their reply and explained the reasons in sufficient detail. One such reply dated 14.10.2019 is Annexure P/3. In turn, respondents passed the impugned orders of punishment dated 16.12.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners raised singular contention. He urged that the impugned orders are adverse orders, which could not have been passed without assigning any reason as to why the replies of petitioners were not trustworthy. Hence, the principles of natural justice are violated.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Parasher, learned P.L.
No other point is pressed by the parties.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Admittedly, the impugned orders entail civil consequences. Rule 16 of M.P.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966, in no uncertain terms, make it clear that while imposing punishment, the Disciplinary Authority is required to assign reasons regarding the defence of the delinquent employee. Thus, it is not only the requirement of principles of natural justice, it is a statutory obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to assign reasons.
The impugned orders dated 16.12.19 show that the respondent have mentioned about filing of reply to the show cause notices by petitioners and then jumped to the 'conclusion' that the said reply was not satisfactory. No reasons are assigned as to why the said reply was not found to be satisfactory.
The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
In the said judgment, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
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".
If impugned order is tested on the anvil of ratio decidendi of said judgment, it will be clear like noonday that no reasons are assigned in the impugned orders. In absence of reasons, the impugned orders dated 16.12.2019 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law expeditiously.
The petition is allowed.
C.C. as per rules.