Chattisgarh High Court
Om Pal Singh Deshwal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 34 ... on 29 June, 2018
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1656 OF 2010
Om Pal Singh Deshwal, S/o Late Shri Bhullan Singh, aged about 61 years, Rtd.
Deputy Milk Commissioner, R/o A-11, Priya Darshini Colony, Nonia Kerval,
Chhindwara (M.P.) ... Petitioners
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Veterinary, D.K.S.
Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Secretary, Department of Veterinary, DKS Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)
3. Director, Directorate of Veterinary, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)
4. Milk Commissioner, Dairy Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
29/06/2018
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.10.2000, Annexure P-1, whereby the Director, Veterinary Services, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal had imposed a punishment upon the Petitioner of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect and also ordered for recovery of the loss caused to the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 76, 712/-.
2. Against the said order of punishment, the Petitioner had preferred an appeal immediately as early as on 17.11.2000. Meanwhile, as the State of Chhattisgarh had been carved out and the Petitioner stood allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, the Appellate Authority changed and the Appellate Authority now became the State of Chhattisgarh. The appeal therefore stood transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh in accordance to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. Though the appeal was transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh but the Appellate Authority did not take any action on the appeal. Ultimately, the Petitioner had to file a writ petition challenging the order of punishment and inaction of the Appellate Authority in not deciding the appeal, vide W.P.(S) No. 3745 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8.7.2008 holding that since the appeal is already pending consideration the writ petition may not be maintainable and therefore it was directed that the Appellate Authority should pass an order on the appeal within a period of 2 eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the High Court. It is thereafter that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal vide Annexure P-2, dated 30.10.2009, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew the notice of this Court to the order of the Appellate Authority particularly the operative part of the same wherein the Appellate Authority has refused to entertain the appeal on merits on certain grounds. Firstly, the fact that the Petitioner had by then retired long back; secondly, the fact that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority again was taken long back and that too by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh; and thirdly the Appellate Authority was of the view that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority was by itself self-explanatory and reasoned one, for the reasons the Appellate Authority refused to entertain the appeal and rejected the same.
4. This observation by the Appellate Authority according to the Petitioner is not sustainable as the minimum that is required from the Appellate Authority is to consider the contentions and submissions of the appellant which he raises in his appeal particularly when the challenge is against an order of punishment. According to the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority ought to have given some reasons or some finding on the contentions which have been specifically raised by the Petitioner in his appeal. He submits that the grounds of appeal that he has raised were factual in nature and the same should have been verified by the Appellate Authority while deciding whether the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is justified or not. Having not done so and having not given any reasons the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is bad in law. He refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Others v. Madhusudhan Rao, 2008 (3) SCC 469.
5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either and on perusal of record, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the operative part of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.10.2009, Annexure P-2, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under:
"lapkyuky;] i'kq fpfdRlk lsok;sa] e-iz Hkksiky dk mDr vkns'k fnukad 31@10@2000 Lo;a Li"V ,oa foosfpr gSA lkFk gh lkFk ;g Hkh vfHkys[kksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh ns'koky] orZeku esa lsokfuo`Rr gks pqdsa gSa rFkk ;g izdj.k vfoHkkftr e/; izns'k ds le; dk gSA orZeku esa Nrrhlx<+ ,d i`Fkd jkT; cu pqdk gSA bruh yEch vof/k ds ckn tkap vf/kdkjh ds tkap fjiksVZ ij iz'ufpUg yxkuk iz'kklfud n`"Vh ls O;ogkfjd ugha gSA"3
6. The plain perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Appellate Authority by itself shows that there was total non-application of mind to the contentions raised in the appeal by the Petitioner. Moreover, the appeal has not been decided on merits. The Appellate Authority has decided the appeal only on the ground that it would not be in the administrative interest or it would not be practical for the Appellate Authority to go into the merits of the case. The said reasons of the Appellate Authority is highly unreasonable and is the least that is expected from an Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is the authority which is otherwise required to discharge the quasi-judicial powers. While exercising these powers it is expected that the Appellate Authority would deal with the contentions and grounds raised by the appellant in his appeal. Even if the appeal or the grounds raised does not have any merits the Appellate Authority is duty bound to have considered those grounds and dealt with it while deciding the appeal.
7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Lata Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 3.9.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 3144 of 2011, wherein it was held as follows:
"8. In the case of East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others with K. Surekha Vs. Mahadeo Appa Rao and Others, 2010 (7) SCC 678, the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order.
9. Likewise, again in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers, 2010 (4) SCC 785, the Supreme Court has held that "recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the 4 ground which weighted with the authority in rejecting him claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that order."
8. Given the aforesaid authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.10.2009, Annexure P-2, is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the Petitioner on its merits dealing with all the grounds and contentions which the Petitioner has raised in his appeal.
9. Let the appeal of the Petitioner be decided by the Appellate Authority within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/ Judge