Tripura High Court
Sri Sambhunath Datta vs The State Of Tripura on 3 January, 2018
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C). No. 273 of 2011
Sri Sambhunath Datta,
son of late Binode Bihari Datta,
resident of Village: West Gobindapur, P.O. Kailashahar, P.S. Kailashahar,
District: North Tripura
[now posted as Inspector (Food), Kailashahar, North Tripura
.........Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, in
the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, P.O. Agartala,
West Tripura
2. The Director,
Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Government of
Tripura, P.O. Agartala, West Tripura
......Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the petitioner : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate : Mr. S.Dutta, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B. Datta, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.06.2017 Date of delivery of Judgment and order : 03.01.2018 Whether fit for reporting : YES Judgment and Order(CAV) The petitioner while serving as the Inspector of Food was proceeded against in terms of the charges, as under noted, communicated by the memorandum No. F.2-1(24)-DF/2001 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) dated 19.07.2002:
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 1 of 23 That said Sri Sambhunath Datta while in-charge of Damchhara Govt. Food Godown under Kanchanpur Sub- Division for the period from 29.11.2000 to 27.09.2001 and Khedachhara Govt. Food Godown under the said Sub-Division for the period from 09.06.2001 to 27.09.2001 exhibited gross dereliction to duties, absolute carelessness, lack of integrity and devotion to duties entrusted upon him by way of not maintaining the books of accounts and other records thereof in the manner prescribed/instructed by the Competent Authority which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant and amounts to misconduct or misbehavior. By resorting to such activities with evil intention to derive personal benefit, said Sri Sambhunath Datta misappropriated 482 Nos. gunny bags and 28,254.800 kgs. Gr. "A" (Raw) Rice of Khedacherra Govt. Food Godown, money value of which is Rs. 2,72,077.20/- and also misappropriated the following commodities in respect of Damcherra Govt. Food Godown, money value of which calculated to Rs. 6,06,794.00/-
I. G. "A" (Raw) Rice - 27,201,.375 kgs. - 348 bags II. C. R. Rice - 24 kgs.
III. C. B. Rice - 31,778 kgs. - 384 bags IV. Sugar - 5,281.220 kgs - 27 bags ARTICLE OF CHARGE -II That during the aforesaid period while functioning in Damcherra Govt. Food Godown it is found that a stock of 442.229 kgs lodised salt in 16 bags, in excess of the book balance. No stock can be excess at any stage in the godown unless the concerned godown in-charge make accumulation of the stock for unauthorized disposal by way of less delivery to the recipients against delivery order or otherwise.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III That during the aforesaid period while functioning as in-charge of Damcherra godown the said Sri Sambhunath Datta, Inspector (Food) admixtured sand, soil etc. to the extent of 70% with sound grains with a view to making good of the misappropriated stock of 16.06 kgs C. B. Rice.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV That said Sri Sambhunath Datta, Inspector (Food) while issuing delivery order for Damcherra & Khedachhara area from 12.09.97 did not pay any heed to the specific instruction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kanchanpur for assumption in duties.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-V WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 2 of 23 That said Sri Sambunhath Datta, Inspector(Food) while in-charge of Damchhara and Khedachhara Govt. Food Godown during the period from 29.11.2000 to 27.09.2001 and 09.06.2001 to 27.09.2001 respectively performed his duty negligently by way of not maintaining the books of accounts, viz, stock of book of rice, sugar, salt etc. of both the godowns properly.
All the said insolent, motivated and unauthorized activity on the part of the said employee attracts Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 and action thereof under the C. C. S. (C. C & A) Rules, 1965."
[2] The petitioner has denied the allegations of misappropriation as brought by the said memorandum dated 02.08.2002 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition) by filing the written statement of defence dated 19.07.2002. The petitioner was placed under suspension. The said statement was unconventionally elaborated. The petitioner claimed in the said written statement that the charges are contradictory and not substantiated by materials and are on conjuncture. The entire procedure of physical verification was perverse and as such, the petitioner though was entitled to exoneration from the charges, but penalty was imposed on culmination of the inquiry.
[3] According to the petitioner, inquiry that has been carried out was taken to its end by flouting the principles of natural justice and the safeguards provided under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner by the memorandum dated 13.02.2007 accommodating him with fortnight's time for filing the representation/reply. The inquiry authority has observed in the report as under: WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 3 of 23
"Viewed in the perspective, I find and hold that the prosecution has established the article of charges against the A. O. except the article -IV. therefore, the charge brought against the A.O. namely Shri Sambhunath Datta, Inspector of Food is found guilty for violation of Rule-3(I) of the Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988."
[4] Thus, except the article No. IV, the other articles of charge were, according to the inquiry authority, successfully established by the prosecution. After purported appreciation of the representation filed by the petitioner on 28.02.2007 (part of Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition) the penalty was imposed on the petitioner, the delinquent officer. The penalty as imposed on the petitioner is as follows:
(i) His pay would stand reduced by three stage for a period of 3(three) years w.e.f. 1st April, 2007 with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay.
(ii) Recovery of the entire amount of pecuniary loss to the Govt. worth Rs. 8,93,051/- (Rupees eight lakh ninety-three thousand fifty one) only at the monthly rate of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) only from his salary commencing from the month of April, 2007 payable in May 2007 till 100% recovery of loss is made from said Sambhunath Datta, Inspector (F).
(iii) Only proportionate pay and allowance not less than the subsistence allowance already paid shall be admissible in respect of the suspension period of Sri Sambhunath Datta, Inspector (F). His pay and allowances may also be regularized accordingly."
[5] Being aggrieved by the said order of penalty dated 27.03.2007, Annexure P/8 to the writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules on 09.05.2007 to the Commissioner and Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 4 of 23 Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala, Annexure P/9 to the writ petition.
[6] The appellate authority by the order dated 14.08.2007, Annexure- P/10 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal on observing as under:
"9. In the Memo of Appeal, the appellant has not submitted any new fact to prove that he is not guilty of the charges brought against him or to the fact that the evidences on record do not established that he is guilty of the charges or to the fact that the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority is severe.
10. In view of what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the undersigned is of the opinion that the Inquiring Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of the charges brought against him and the Disciplinary Authority also has not inflicted punishment which is not warranted by evidences on record. The undersigned, therefore, hereby upholds the punishment inflicted upon the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority and finds no valid reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
11. Since the punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority has not been enhanced, the undersigned does not feel the necessity of giving personal hearing to the appellant."
[7] The petitioner has challenged the final order of penalty dated 27.03.2007, Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition and the order dated 17.08.2007 dismissing his departmental appeal, Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Further, it has been urged that the respondent be directed to consider the representation dated 12.08.2009, Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition whereby the disciplinary authority is pursuaded to review the punishment order. It appears that the said representation dated 12.08.2009 has been filed in terms of Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 5 of 23 [8] Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the beginning submitted that the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity of adducing the evidence by the inquiry authority. That apart, the additional documents as sought by the petitioner by submitting the petition dated 29.08.2003, part of Annexure-P/3 were not produced but one document was produced. From the petition dated 29.08.2003, Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition, it appears that out of those required two relevant additional documents that one document was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner had urged for production of the following documents:
1. Tally sheet of weighmen. 2. Charge list. 3. Anonymous letter received by SDO Kanchanpur in the month of September, 2001 and (4) Receipted signal No. 2234 dated 09.11.2001."
[9] Mr. Deb learned senior counsel has submitted that from the phase of filing the statement of defence, the petitioner had elaborately explained his conduct and made sincere efforts to lay all relevant facts to demonstrate that he had never indulged in any act which can be termed as unbecoming or that he has "exhibited gross dereliction to duties, absolute carelessness, lack of integrity and devotion to duties entrusted upon him by not maintaining the books of accounts and other records thereof, in the manner prescribed/instructed by the Competent Authority which is unbecoming of a Government servant and amounts to misconduct or misbehavior.
WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 6 of 23 [10] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the alleged misappropriation of 482 gunny bags, 28,254800 kgs of graded Raw Rice of Khedacherra Govt. Food godown, value of which as estimated is Rs. 2,72,77.20/-, are all merely perceived. The allegation that has been brought against the petitioner is that he has misappropriated Grade A (Raw) Rice quantified at Rs. 27,201.375/- kgs [348 bags] C.R. Rice, 24 kgs, C. R. Rice 31,778 kgs (384 bags) and sugar 5281.220 kgs (27 bags).
[11] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has also submitted that on the physical verification it was found that in the store there was excess salt of 44229 kgs Iodized salt in 16 bags in excess to the book balance. The allegation that the petitioner while functioning as the In-charge Damcherra Govt. Food godown, he had admixed sand soil etc., to the extent of 70% of the sound grains with a view to misappropriate the inflated weight of 16.60 kgs C.D. Rice. [12] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further submitted that there is allegation of flouting the procedure for issuing delivery order while the petitioner was posted at Damcherra-Khedachera area from 12.09.1997. Even he had disobeyed the instruction of the sub-Divisional Officer Kanchanpur. There was serious allegations of negligence or dereliction of the duties during the period from 29.11.2000 to 27.09.2001 and 09.06.2001 to 27.09.2001. [13] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has concluded by saying that there is no foundation to support those allegations or WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 7 of 23 other allegation in respect of the conduct of the petitioner which according to the disciplinary authority is violative of Rule-3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules 1988. In para -5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred in order to demonstrate that in the course of the inquiry proceeding, the petitioner valuable right was denied:
"5. The Inquiring Authority was appointed who started the proceeding. Your humble petitioner submitted an application on 03.06.2003 to the said Inquiring Authority asking for production of the documents referred to iv the said petition viz."(I) Tally sheet of weighment 0610 MT Rice of .....NIL, as charged to be handed over to the A.O. on 09.06.2001 in connection with charges vide No. 17(1) of 22 -Point Inspection done by T.O. (Food) of Food Directorate, (ii) Charge list by which the E.M (ASDO) KCP handed over charges of Kanchanpur Government Food Godown to A.O. (III) Anonymous letter received by then SDO, KCP during the month of September, 2001 containing blame against the A.O. and other Authorities, (iv) receipted sheet/NIL of Signals No. 2234 dated 09.11.2001 and No. 2437-38 dated 16.10.2001 of the then SDO, KCP issued upon the A.O."
[14] The production of those documents was again insisted by the petitioner by filing the representation dated 29.08.2003. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel while referring to the evidence recorded by the Inquiring Authority has highlighted the statement made by one Arun Kr. Bhowmik (PW-2), Technical Officer, whose report was heavily relied by the disciplinary authority. PW-2 has admitted and stated as under:
"After arrival at the said godown I found that a local authority (SDM, Kanchanpur) arranged physical verification stock by both the godown by engaging his addl. SDM, Kanchanpur namely Sri Dhirendra Debbarma. And as such I had gone through the report of the said physical verification as produced by the then Addl. SDM. Since Addl. SDM verified the physical stock of both the godown I along with my men did not perform the same again.WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 8 of 23
In the cross examination he had further stated as follows:
I mentioned in my report that during physical verification of the said godown one page of stock book of rice was not available in the stock book. But at this stage I cannot exactly remember whether I prepared any imaginary sheet to make of the said missing page of the stock book. During my physical verification of both the godown Accountant of SDM's Office, Kanchanpur was not present."
[15] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has emphasized before this court there were elements of trust when he had taken over the charge. No contradiction has been projected. The weighment was carried out on 08.06.2001 and 09.06.2001 when it appeared from the statement of Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer, PW- 3, that the petitioner was hardly present during the said physical inquiry. He has categorically stated for a very small amount of hour, one hour exactly, the petitioner was there during the weighment of material of Khedacherra Food godown.
[16] The report thereof was relied by the presenting officer in support of the articles of charge and those were believed by the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and they came to a definite finding that for the said unbecoming act of the petitioner, Govt. suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 8,093,51/-. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel had pointed out that on the basis of the complaint of the concerned authority, a criminal proceeding was lodged and in connection therewith, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 9 of 23 [17] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that no reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for passing the order of penalty and the Appellate Authority in contravention to the of guidelines as provided under Rule-27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the appeal has been disposed of mechanically and without appreciating the grounds as alleged by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. As such, gross injustice has been meted out to the petitioner and hence, the impugned orders viz. the order dated 27.03.2007 (Annexure P/8 to the writ petition) and the appellate order dated 17.08.2007 (Annexure-P/10 to the writ petition) be interfered with and set aside.
[18] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has on the aspects of withholding of reasons relied on a decision of Apex Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L. K. Ratan and Others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 537, where the Apex Court has observed that the authority is obliged to give reason for its finding that the delinquent is guilty of misconduct. For fairness in action and for justice, the delinquent is entitled to know why he has been found guilty. The Apex Court has also observed in L.K. Ratan (supra) as under:
"28. The conclusion reached by us has not been an easy one. The authorities on the subject have oscillated from one extreme to the other and an analysis of the cases points at times to some rather slender element in the mosaic of facts which has influenced the outcome. There is good reason ultimately for adopting a liberal view, for as has been observed by the late Professor S.A. De Smith in his 'Judicial Review of Administrative Action' Fourth Edition p. 261:WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 10 of 23
..... a report will normally include a statement of findings and recommendations, which may be controverted before the parent body; and in such a case the participation of members of the sub- committee in the final decision may be of dubious validity. The problem is not merely one of strict law; it is also one of public policy."
[19] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred to a comment made by Prof. H. W. R. Wade in his Administrative Law (6th Ed. page 533 to 534) on fair hearing. The referred passages read as under:
"Procedural objections are often raised by unmeritorious parties. Judges may then be tempted to refuse relief on the ground that a fair hearing could have made no difference to the result. But in principle it is vital that the procedure and the merits should be kept strictly apart, since otherwise the merits may be prejudged unfairly. Lord Wright once said :
If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision it is, indeed, immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision."
[20] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred another Apex Court decision in S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, where the Apex Court has observed that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi judicial function must record the reasons for its decision. The relevant part is extracted hereunder:
"The other considerations why the recording of reasons is required are (i) guarantee consideration by the authority, (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions, and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. As contrasted with the ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions where the judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency, an executive officer generally looks at things from the WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 11 of 23 standpoint of policy and expediency. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review.
However, it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
[Emphasis added] [21] In Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported (2010) 9 SCC 496, where the Apex Court on the necessity of giving reasons has observed as under:
"12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
13. In Kesava Mills Co. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1973 SC 389, this Court approvingly referred to the opinion of Lord Denning in Rigina vs. Gaming Board Ex parte Benaim [(1970) 2 WLR 1009] and quoted him as saying "that heresy was scotched in Ridge and Boldwin, 1964 AC 40".
14. The expression `speaking order' was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 12 of 23 errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report).
15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the `inscrutable face of a Sphinx'."
[Emphasis added] [22] Masood Ahmed Khan (supra) has been approved by the Apex Court in Manohar S/o Manik Rao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has thus contended that the impugned orders are outcome of a process which was carried out in violation of principle of natural justice or safeguards as provided Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
[23] That apart, the foundational facts do get support from the evidence as laid in the proceeding. Moreover, the Disciplinary authority has taken a " rubber stamp" approach in adopting the findings of the Inquiring Authority and no independent reasons was were provided in the orders. The Appellate Authority while passing the order dismissing the appeal, has acted no better. [24] From the other side Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stoutly submitted that the extent of judicial review in respect of the final order passed on culmination of the disciplinary proceeding is greatly circumscribed, except in two situations viz. (a) when there is no evidence at all or when appreciation of the evidence is so grossly perverse that the finding based on those cannot be sustained following the principle of good WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 13 of 23 conscience and justice and (b) where in the proceeding, there was apparent violation of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the right of the delinquent.
[25] Mr. Datta, learned counsel by producing the records of the proceeding has submitted that from the reports of the accounts team headed by PW-2, Exhibits S/6, S/7 and S/8, it is evident beyond any doubt that the glaring discrepancy vis-a-vis the records of the stock of the godown was identified by the said accounts team and the said report has been duly admitted in the evidence. It submitted that PW-3 also found discrepancy in the stock of godowns, both in Khadacherra and Damcherra, after physical verification, during the incumbency period of the petitioner. From his report, Exbt. S/1 and S/2, that would be apparent. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the account team were sent while taking the charge, is not correct and is not borne in the records. [26] Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that during his incumbency, the shortage as identified by the accounts team was for an amount of Rs.8,93,051/- and the said misappropriation has been clearly established. There was severe dereliction of duties in maintaining the records. That has been brought out in the evidence. Thus, the report of the Inquiring Authority cannot be faulted with. The finding of the Inquiring Authority is structured on the cogent evidence. Even, the disciplinary authority has given his own reason for adopting the WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 14 of 23 findings as returned by the Inquiring Authority. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel there is no substance in the writ petition and therefore, it shall be dismissed without any further consideration. [27] Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that such defalcation was extensively reported by the local media. All the documents for rebuttal of the report by the Account team were provided to the petitioner but the petitioner has failed to debase the finding in the physical verification report. [28] It would be apposite for this Court to observe that the rules of natural justice are to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can only operate in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great amount of change in the recent years. While dwelling upon the rules of natural justice in Manohar (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:
"....In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries.WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 15 of 23
Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi- judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi- judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
18. In the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in [(2010) 9 SCC 496], the Court dealt with the question of demarcation between the administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders and the requirement of adherence to natural justice. The Court held as under:
"47. Summarising 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 WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 16 of 23 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 instrumentalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. 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.)
(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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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'."
[Emphasis added] [29] Let us first examine the aspect of non supply of the additional document vis-a-vis the prejudice caused to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the Inquiring Authority had directed WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 17 of 23 production of two documents but only one document was produced in the proceeding. Nowhere in the entire writ petition we find any averment how for non production of the document the petitioner had suffered the prejudice. It has been merely stated that the prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Even how the documents which were purportedly withheld by the disciplinary authority would have been instrumental in rebutting the evidence has not been disclosed anywhere in the writ petition. [30] From the record as produced by Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it appears that the disciplinary authority in the file No. F.2-6(3) -DF/2002, has observed that two documents, out of the list, were found relevant. From the note No. 14 of the same file, the Disciplinary Authority was directed to produce the same document to the Inquiring Authority but the same was not so produced as would be evident from the Note No. 16.
[31] The message that has been referred only contains the handing over of the charge which was directed to be done on hundred percent weighment in presence of the Block Development Officer. But whether that was followed or not, has not been ascertained or has been asserted by the delinquent. [32] This Court has scrutinized the records and finds that the steps were taken to procure the said records, but the said record could not be produced by the presenting officer before the Inquiring WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 18 of 23 Authority. After considering the relevancy, in the case No. 875 INQ Food 2002 dated 03.06.2003, the following order was passed and in this regard there is no dispute.
"Perused the list. Heard both sides regarding relevancy of those documents. Considered.
On a prima facie view it appears to me that all the proposed documents except the document mentioned against Sl. No. 3 have got relevancy with the instant proceedings. Hence documents mentioned against Sl. No. 1, 2 and 4 are allowed. Since the A.O. is already having the copy of the document mentioned against the Sl. No. 4, hence P.O. is requested to supply copies of documents mentioned against Sl. No. 1 & 2 of the list of Addl. Documents subject to feasibility."
[33] It appears from the record that the Director, Food Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, by the memorandum under No. F.2-6 (3) -DF/ 2000 dated 09.01.2003, in pursuance to the order dated 06.01.2003, asked the petitioner to inspect the documents in the office of the Director, FCSCA on any working day during the office hours. It appears that the petitioner did not inspect as asked. The right of the delinquent officer as provided under Rule 14(13) is to get the documents produced before the custody of the concerned authority and there after delinquent has only right to inspect the document. A technical error is located in the process that the petitioner was called upon to inspect the document in the office of the Disciplinary Authority but the same was not produced. In that premises the petitioner has sought to make a case of withholding of a vital document.
[34] The procedural rights are aftertimes entrained with the substantive due process. But the process has to be ultimately tested WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 19 of 23 on the basis of the test of prejudice. In this case, the petitioner has not disclosed any reason what he had done after receipt of the memorandum dated 09.01.2003. As such, this Court will not accept non-production of the other documents as denial of the right. [35] Another ground which has been advanced by the petitioner is that he was not called upon to adduce his evidence. We have perused the records to find out whether such opportunity was given by the disciplinary authority or not. From the order dated 15.07.06 passed in case No. 875/INQ/Food/2002, this Court has come across the following order:
"The deposition of 12 nos. witnesses are bulky in nature and I am also busy the other files and as such I have not time today to conclude the examination of the A.O. under 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the case is adjourned today.
Both the parties are requested to remain present on the date fixed. To 05.09.2006 for examination of A.O. under 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965/submission of written brief of argument by the P.O. and reply to the written brief of argument by the A.O."
On 05.09.2006 the following order was passed by the inquiring authority:
"P.O. is present. A.O. along with his defence Assistant is also present.
A.O. is examined under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in separate sheet of papers.
Keep it with the case record.
P.O. has submitted the written brief of argument with a copy to the A.O. Later on the A.O. has submitted his reply to the written brief of argument with a copy to the P.O. Perused the same.
Keep it with the case record.
Since all the stages as contemplated under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have already been exhausted the matter be kept reserved for delivery of findings."WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 20 of 23
[36] Thus, it is very clear that the requirement of Rule 14(16) and Rule 14(17) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been satisfied and the petitioner could not have any grievance in this regard as the statement of defence that he filed there no such objection was raised.
[37] PW-2 having referred the report deposed that the total verification report was prepared following the scientific method and the irregularities pointed out there are all based on physical verification. Even the petitioner could not show that he had no domain over those properties for the period under the Physical verification (PV in short), though the petitioner at one point of time raised the objection stating that there was 100% weighment but in the statement of defence as filed on 05.09.16 he himself has stated as under:
"100% weighment of Khedachara Govt. Food was not done by the then ASDO Kanchanpur. However, the A.O. prepared a list of stock & other materials as per dictation of the Weighment Team, on 09.06.2001 which was not approved as charge-list, since the A.O. ordered on 13.06.01 to work in the said godown."
[38] Thus, the report of the Inquiring Authority cannot be faulted with for not providing due opportunity for laying the delinquent's version or for perverse appreciation, inasmuch as, the evidence is in abundance from the Disciplinary Authority. But the rebuttal evidence is far short to reach the bench mark for probabalizing that the evidence produced by the disciplinary authority was not credit worthy.
WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 21 of 23 [39] The final question that has been projected is whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority reflects the reasons or the said order is absolutely an order bereft of any reason. Having perused the order dated 27.03.2007, this Court is confronted with reasons in para-2 of the final order:
"2. I have gone through all the related records in files including the representation of A.O. and examined the matter carefully and symp0athetically. A.O. has stated nothing new in his defence vide his representation dated 28.02.2007 save and except what he has already submitted before the inquiring authority and prayed to safeguard him from the charge mainly citing the ground that the A.O. is a physically handicapped employee. The Inquiring Authority, in his findings dated 30.11.2006, also considered the other relevant issues, as put forward by the A.O. Hence, I find no merits in the reply of A.O. Sri Sambhunath Datta, Inspector (Food). There is no doubt that pecuniary loss to the Govt. worth Rs. 8,93,051/- (Rupees eight lakh ninety three thousand fifty one) only as framed in the charge sheet was caused due to the negligence in duties by the A.O."
[40] It is evident that in terms of rule-14 (23) (i) (c), the Inquiry Authority has submitted an elaborate report giving the reasons for holding the delinquent petitioner guilty of articles I, II, III, and V. Thereafter the said findings were given to the petitioner for his response and against that the petitioner had submitted his reply. After considering those reasons and the representation filed by the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority passed the said order clearly indicating why the penalties have been imposed. The said reason may not be elaborate but he the reasons are quite cogent. It would have been better, no doubt, if some elaboration was made. But as it has been held that the reasons are cogent, it cannot be held that there is no reason in the order why the penalties are imposed on the petitioner.
WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 22 of 23 [41] Similarly, the Appellate Authority has affirmed the reasons and as such has not embarked on reiterating the reasons. But this Court is constrained to observe that the Appellate Authority ought to have been followed the provision of Rule 27(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As there is no substance in the defence as laid by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority to pass an elaborate order. Even there is no such necessity in this case. Needless to say that the Appellate Authority owe a duty to re-scrutinize the entire process and the evidence so recorded to find out whether the findings are returned in accordance with the procedure as laid down or in conformity of principle of natural justice.
What therefore emerges that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference and hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Return the records as produced by the Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
JUDGE A.Ghosh WP(C). No. 273 of 2011 Page 23 of 23