Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Rawat vs State Of M.P. on 17 July, 2014
1
WP No. 168/2013
Vijay Singh Kushwah
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No. 164/2013
Rajendra Singh Rawat
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No.1041/2013
Madho Singh
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No. 332/2013
Virendra Kumar Jatav
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No. 314/2013
Dharamvir Girvasia and Ors
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No. 175/2013
Mahendra Singh Rawat
VS.
2
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No. 167/2013
Naresh Kumar Modi
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP No. 168/13, WP.164/13, WP.167/13, WP. 175/13, WP. 332/13 & WP.1041/13.
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP No. 314/13.
Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, G.A. for the respondents / State. ..................................................................................................
( O R D E R) (17 /07/2014) On the joint request, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners were served with a show cause notice. In turn, they submitted their reply. Neither any enquiry was conducted nor any personal hearing was given to them. The impugned order is passed without assigning any reason on the reply of the petitioner. He submits that in similar matter in WP No. 6642/2011 this Court has set aside the similar order for violating the principle of natural justice.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The impugned order shows that show cause notice was 3 given to the petitioners. In turn, the petitioners submitted their reply. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that petitioners reply were not found to be satisfactory. However, before recording the said "conclusion" that reply is not satisfactory, no "reasons" are assigned. Reasons are heart beat of conclusions. Assigning reason is part of "due process". The impugned order resulted into termination of the petitioners and therefore, it was necessary for the respondents to act in accordance with principle of natural justice. The Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 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.4
(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.
5(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".
In WP No. 6642/2011 also this Court interfered because principles of natural justice were not followed. This Court passed the following orders :-
"The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed on the post of Assistant Teacher and a show cause notice was issued to him on account of procuring some forged certificate of D.Ed. , and obtaining employment on the basis of that certificate.6
The reply which was filed was not found to be satisfactory but without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, straightway the order to cancel the appointment has been passed vide Annexure P/1.
On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer has urged in support of the impugned order and submitted that petitioner is not entitled for appointment.
Since the respondent No.4 has deviated from the principle of natural justice and service jurisprudence, the impunged order cannot be allowed to stand. However, the respondents shall be free to hold any enquiry in that regard against the petitioner, if necessary.
For present, petition is allowed and impugned order stands quashed."
On the basis of aforesaid, It is clear that impugned order is passed without following the principle of natural justice. The impugned orders in all the cases are accordingly set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. No costs.
(Sujoy Paul)
sarathe/- Judge