Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs State Of ... on 20 February, 2019
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 17 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 18642 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu, Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1- Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.-1 and 2.
2- The petitioner has made certain allegations against the respondent nos.-3 and 4. However, in view of the issue involved in the writ petition and order/judgment proposed to be passed, the notices to respondent nos.3 and 4 are dispensed with.
3- The present writ petition relates to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
4- The punishment order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the appointing authority/ Consolidation Commission, U.P./respondent no.-2, whereby the petitioner was dismissed and order of rejection of appeal of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority/ Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue/respondent no.-1 vide order dated 26.3.2018 are impugned in the present writ petition.
5- The scope of judicial review with respect to the departmental proceedings is limited.
6- This Court under its power conferred by Article 226 of Constitution of India, can interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceedings if the disciplinary/enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of manner prescribed and against Principle of Natural Justice and if the order of concerned authority is non speaking and unreasoned. This Court can interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceedings if the decision making process is in violation of Rules or against Principle of Natural Justice. The judicial review in the matter of departmental proceedings is permissible with respect to decision making process and not against the decision itself unless it is shown that the decision is without any evidence or suffers from malafide or malice or harsh or without jurisdiction.
7- In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 521] , Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981]".
8- In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
18. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] the scope of judicial review was indicated by stating that review by the court is of decision-making process and where the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on some evidence, the court or the tribunal cannot reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding.
19. As observed in R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab [(1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424] in paras 16 and 17 the scope of interference is rather limited and has to be exercised within the circumscribed limits. It was noted as follows: (SCC p. 96) "16. Before adverting to the first contention of the appellant regarding want of material to establish the charge, and of non-application of mind, we will have to bear in mind the rule that the court while exercising writ jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the inquiring authority on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the inquiring authority, it is not the function of the court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The inquiring authority is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the court in writ proceedings.
17. A narration of the charges and the reasons of the inquiring authority for accepting the charges, as seen from the records, shows that the inquiring authority has based its conclusions on materials available on record after considering the defence put forth by the appellant and these decisions, in our opinion, have been taken in a reasonable manner and objectively. The conclusion arrived at by the inquiring authority cannot be termed as either being perverse or not based on any material nor is it a case where there has been any non-application of mind on the part of the inquiring authority. Likewise, the High Court has looked into the material based on which the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion, within the limited scope available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution and we do not find any fault with the findings of the High Court in this regard."
9- In the case of Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondent's case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority. All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority."
10- Considering the scope of judicial review by this Court in the departmental proceedings, this Court is only considering the facts which relates to the conduct of the enquiry officer and process adopted by him, and the legality of the orders impugned and is not referring the allegations made against the respondent nos.-3 and 4.
11- The brief facts relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present case are that:- (i) the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Consolidator in the Consolidation Department on 01.03.1988 (ii) the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer on 16.12.1997 (iii) the petitioner was promoted on the post of Consolidation Officer on 29.01.2015 (iv) vide order dated 23.10.2016, the petitioner was transferred from District Amethi to District Balia, but on account of ailment / illness, he could not joined on the post as he was advised to take bed rest from 31.5.2016 to 31.8.2016 (v) on 13.7.2016 the petitioner met the respondent no.-2 for cancellation of transfer (vi) on 15.7.2016 the petitioner was placed under suspension and was attached with the Office of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Balia (vii) the ground of suspension, as mentioned in the order of suspension, is to the effect that the petitioner alongwith his son created the pressure upon the respondent no.-2 for cancellation of transfer order dated 30.5.2016 and misbehaved with him and manhandled attacked the respondent no.-2 with intension to kill (viii) on 13.7.2016 an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner under Sections 147/148/332/307/504/506 IPC and the criminal case was registered bearing Case Crime No.-430 of 2016 (ix) the FIR dated 13.7.2016 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.-17004(MB) of 2016 and this Court was pleased to pass an interim order in favour of the petitioner (x), after order of suspension and lodging of FIR, the charge-sheet dated 28.7.2016 was issued providing 15 days' time to file reply to charge-sheet, (XI) On 30.07.2016 the petitioner was informed by telephone through whatsapp message about the charge-sheet dated 28.7.2016 and he was directed to receive the charge-sheet, but he refused to receive the same and thereafter the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 1.8.2016 but the same could not be served upon the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner also refused to receive the charge-sheet, which was sent through letter dated 1.8.2016, (XII) Thereafter vide letter dated 2.8.2016 the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner through registered post and the necessary information was also provided to the petitioner through whatsapp mobile number, (XIII) In absence of reply from the petitioner to the letter dated 2.8.2016 as well as to the charge-sheet dated 28.7.2016, a notice regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was published in the daily news paper "Dainik Jagaran" on 4.8.2016, (XIV) despite of publication of notice dated 4.8.2016, regarding disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner failed to submit the reply to the charge-sheet, (XV) the petitioner vide letter dated 8.8.2016, was directed to cross examine the witnesses, on the fixed date , time and place as 11.8.2016 till 1:00 noon, (XVI) the disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner on 11.8.2016 between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and on that date the petitioner did not appeared before the enquiry officer, (XVII) On the same day i.e. 11.8.2016, a letter of the petitioner dated 09.08.2016 was received in the office, requesting therein that charge-sheet be provided to the petitioner on the residential address of the petitioner and on the same day the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner mentioning therein that reply be submitted by 16.8.2016, (XVIII) The enquiry officer submitted its report dated 17.08.2016 before the disciplinary authority.
12- The disciplinary authority issued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.08.2016 and thereafter the reminder was issued for submission of reply to the enquiry report by fixing date i.e. 29.08.2016 for submission of reply.
13- The petitioner failed to submit his reply and the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 31.08.2016, Against the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred the appeal before the appellate authority on 14.09.2016. In the appeal the petitioner has taken plea related to conduct of disciplinary proceedings. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.03.2018.
14- In counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties it has been stated that due opportunity was given by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority but the petitioner has not availed the same. The Enquiry Officer conducted the proper enquiry and submitted the report. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report passed the order dated 31.08.2016, dismissing the petitioner. The Appellate Authority after considering appeal of the petitioner passed the order dated 26.3.2018. The orders impugned are not liable to be interfered.
15- Assailing the impugned orders, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the procedure and manner prescribed under the rules and settled by this Court. The order of dismissal has been passed without application of mind and the order of appellate authority is a non speaking order as he has not considered the pleas raised by the petitioner in his appeal.
16- Per contra submission for learned Counsel for opposite parties is that the due opportunity was given by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority but the petitioner has not availed the same. Further submitted that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry as per procedure prescribed and thereafter submitted his report. The enquiry officer recorded the evidences of the witnesses in enquiry proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order after considering the charges and contents of enquiry report. The appellate authority after considering the pleas raised by the petitioner, passed the order. The orders impugned are not liable to be interfered.
17. It reveals from the enquiry report dated 17.08.2016 on record as Annexure No.-21 to the writ petition that enquiry was held and completed on 11.08.2016 and the enquiry officer in response to the letter of petitioner received on 11.08.2016 sent the charge sheet vide letter dated 11.08.2016 requiring the petitioner to submit his reply by 16.08.2016 and in absence of reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet the enquiry report dated 17.08.2016 was prepared and submitted. It also reveals from the enquiry report that in the enquiry, departmental witnesses were examined and for cross examination of witnesses by the petitioner and for producing the witnesses by the petitioner no date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer.
18- From the aforesaid, it transpires that:-
(i) in the charge sheet dated 28.07.2016, 15 days' time was given to the petitioner for submitting his reply to the charge sheet.
(ii) the date i.e. 11.08.2016 was fixed for enquiry proceedings and enquiry was completed on 11.08.2016.
(iii) the enquiry was completed before expiry of 15 days, provided for submission of reply to the charge sheet,
(iv) the enquiry officer completed the enquiry on 11.08.2016 and on the same date i.e. vide letter dated 11.08.2016 directed the petitioner to submit his reply to the charge sheet by 16.08.2016.
(v) in the enquiry, departmental witnesses were examined and for cross examination of witnesses by the petitioner and for producing the witnesses by the petitioner no date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer.
19- The Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short "Rules of 1999") is the applicable in the instant case. The Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 is quoted below for ready reference:-
"7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government Servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner :
(i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.
(ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority :
Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department.
(iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government Servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidences and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidences, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The charged Government Servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte.
(v) The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government Servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation:
Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government Servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer.
(vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission.
(vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence :
Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness.
(viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witnesses to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976.
(ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges.
(x) Where the charged Government Servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant.
(xi) The Disciplinary Authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may by an order appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge.
(xii) The Government Servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner of the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits :
Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases :
(i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or
(iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules."
20- The Rule 7(4) provides that at least 15 days' time should be given to the delinquent employee for submission of reply to the charge sheet.
21- In the instant case the charge sheet was issued on 28.07.2016, providing 15 days time to the petitioner/delinquent employee to submit his reply to the charge sheet, and the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry on 11.08.2016 i.e. prior to expiry of time provided for submission of reply to the charge sheet and as such the enquiry proceeding carried out by the enquiry officer is in violation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1999 and Principle of Natural Justice.
22- The Division Bench of this Court after considering the catena of judgments on the issue of holding of departmental/ disciplinary proceedings in the judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.-34093 (S/B) of 2018 ( State of U.P. and Others Vs. Deepak Kumar and Another) has observed as under:-
"It is settled by the catena of judgments that it is the duty of Enquiry Officer to hold ''Regular Enquiry'. Regular enquiry means that after reply to the charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce his evidence in defence. The opportunity of personal hearing should also be given/awarded to the delinquent employee. Even if the charged employee does not participate/co-operate in the enquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte by recording oral evidence. For regular enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the purposes of proving of charges and documents, relied upon and opportunity to delinquent employee should also be given to produce his witness by fixing date, time and place. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to submit its report, stating therein all the relevant facts, evidence and statement of findings on each charge and reasons thereof, and thereafter, prior to imposing any punishment, the copy of the report should be provided to charged officer for the purposes of submission of his reply on the same. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record. (vide: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (8) LCD 486; Avatar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1998 (16) LCD 199; Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad 1979 Vol. I SCC 60; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain Bajpai 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC 651; Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others AIR 1985 SC 1121; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories 2003 (21) LCD 610; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570; M.M. Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (31) LCD 1319; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (4) ALJ 440. Rules 7, 8 and 9 of Rules 1999 are also relevant".
23- It reveals from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer without waiting for reasonable period for submission of reply by the petitioner and without fixing date, time and place for producing the witnesses by the petitioner/delinquent employee, conducted the enquiry and being so failed to conduct the enquiry in the manner/Principles settled by this Court and as such also the enquiry report is unsustainable.
24- This Court considered the order of punishment dated 31.08.2016 and on due consideration, this Court feels that while passing the order dated 31.08.2016 the disciplinary authority/opposite party no.-2 has ignored the fact that (i) enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in utter violation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1999, (ii) the enquiry officer failed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. It also reflects from the order dated 31.08.2016 that the same is based on enquiry report dated 17.08.2016, which this Court has already held in preceding paragraphs that the same is in violation of Rules of 1999 and Principles of Natural Justice.
25- In regard to the order of appellate authority dated 26.03.2018 this Court is of the view that the same is also based on enquiry report dated 17.08.2016 and the appellate authority while passing the order has also ignored the fact that (i) the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in utter violation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1999, (ii) the enquiry officer failed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. On some points/pleas, pertaining to conducting the enquiry by Enquiry Officer, raised by the petitioner in his appeal the appellate authority has not recorded the reasons for conclusion of rejecting the plea, keeping in view the provisions of the Rule 7 of the Rule 1999.
26- The recording of reasons are necessary. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion.
In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, as under:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."
The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, has explained that reasons are necessary links between the facts and the findings recorded in the administrative orders, which visit a party with evil civil consequences. In absence of reasons such an order cannot be permitted to stand."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11 SCC 519, has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.
In Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Apex Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..."
The Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said:
"Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two."
The Apex Court also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision."
27- The basis of the impugned orders dated 31.08.2016 and 26.03.2018 is the enquiry report dated 17.08.2016, which this Court has already held in preceding paragraphs that the same is in violation of Rules of 1999 and keeping in view of the same as well as the maxim "Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus" (a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls) the impugned orders are liable to be interfered/set aside by this Court.
28- In addition, the order dated 31.08.2016 and 21.03.2018 have been passed by the opposite party no.-2 without considering the fact that enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and appellate authority has passed unreasoned order on points/pleas, pertaining to conducting the enquiry by Enquiry Officer, raised by the petitioner and as such also impugned orders are liable to be interfered and set aside by this Court.
29- For the reasons and findings recorded hereinabove the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.08.2016 and 26.03.2018 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry afresh in accordance with the Rules and the settled Principles for holding the departmental enquiry, as observed hereinabove. The enquiry be completed within 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry. Any adjournment taken by the parties in the enquiry proceedings would not be counted for the purposes of counting the period specified in this judgment for concluding the enquiry proceedings.
Order Date :- 20.2.2019 Jyoti/-