Orissa High Court
Afr Minati Devi vs Director on 14 March, 2023
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 150 of 2013
Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
---------------
AFR Minati Devi ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
Director, Secondary Education,
Odisha & others ....... Opp.Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
__________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Das, R.K. Behera &
N. Jena, Advocates
For Opp. Parties: Mr. D. Mohapatra,
Standing Counsel for School and
Mass Education Department.
Mr. J.K. Rath, Senior Advocate with
M/s. D.N. Rath, S.N. Rath &
P.K. Rath, Advocates.
(for O.P. No.4)
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th 14 March, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Appeal No. 17 of 2010 filed by him, which was dismissed.
Page 1 of 9
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of Totapada Girls' High School in the district of Mayurbhanj (opposite party No.3). She was kept in-charge of the Headmistress by order dated 25.06.1987. On 03.03.1993, a show cause notice was served upon her containing the following three charges.
"(i) Refusal to comply the request of one Sri Ghanashyama Hansda Brahmachari for withdrawal of interest amount from Bank.
(ii) Disrespect to the decision of Managing Committee for arrangement of funds for development of school.
(iii) Un-authorized absent from 22.02.1993 to 24.02.1993 for 3 days."
The petitioner submitted his reply on 06.03.1993. Again on 23.06.1993, the Secretary of the Managing Committee issued show cause notice of draft charges relating to several allegations. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.07.1993 pending enquiry. On the next day another order was issued appointing Tarakanta Parida and Smt. Bidutprava Barik as enquiring officers with instructions to enquire into the matter and submit a report by 15.07.1993. It is claimed that no enquiry was Page 2 of 9 conducted, inasmuch as the petitioner was never given any opportunity to participate in the said enquiry. She was also never served with copy of the enquiry report. Ultimately, by order dated 07.01.1994, the services of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner challenged the same before the Director, Secondary Education, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.1997 by holding that appropriate procedure has been observed by the authorities before termination of the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 4401 of 1997. This Court, by order dated 13.04.2010 remitted the matter to the Director for de novo enquiry. The order passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:
"Taking into consideration all these facts, this Court feels ends of justice and equity would be better served if the order dated 18.02.1997 (Annexure-11) passed by the Director is set aside and the matter is remitted back for de novo enquiry. The order of termination of the petitioner shall remain un-affected till the appeal is disposed of on merits.
To facilitate early disposal of the dispute, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa th Bhubaneswar on 24 April, 2010 and file a copy of the memorandum of appeal said to have been filed on 28.01.1994. On the said date or soon thereafter, the Director shall issue notice to all parties fixing a short date and dispose of the Page 3 of 9 appeal strictly in accordance with law. Liberty is granted to all parties to file such other documents relating to the controversy, if they so desire."
Pursuant to such order of this Court, the appeal was again heard by the Director. From the impugned order, enclosed as Annexure-12, it appears that the Director referred to the contentions of the parties in detail and framed the following issues for examination.
"(a) As to whether the principle of natural justice has been followed or not.
(b) As to whether the award of punishment imposed upon the appellant is reciprocal to the charges framed."
Thereafter, the Director held that due procedure has been adopted by the Managing Committee in terminating the services of the petitioner and accordingly such order was upheld. The said order is impugned in the present writ application.
3. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned State Counsel and Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for opposite party No.4. Page 4 of 9
4. It is submitted by Mr. Das that the impugned order is non-speaking, inasmuch as despite framing two issues, the Director did not render any specific findings on the same.
5. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned State Counsel fairly submits that the order is in fact, non-speaking and that the matter may be remanded for fresh hearing.
6. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has not claimed any relief whatsoever against his client and therefore, the opposite party No.4 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.
7. This Court observes that the Director framed two issues for determination. On the first issue it was simply held that the Managing Committee had issued show cause notices to the appellant on certain charges, instituted disciplinary proceedings framing definite charges warranting replies from the appellant prior to imposition of award of punishment. The contention raised by the petitioner that she was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and that the copy of the enquiry Page 5 of 9 report was not served upon her, has not engaged the attention of the Director. Secondly, despite framing the second issue relating to the proportionality of the punishment awarded, the Director has not rendered any finding whatsoever thereof.
8. It is well-settled that reason is the soul of an order even if passed by a quasi-judicial authority. Reason in an order can enable the superior court to test its correctness. Law is also well settled in this regard. Reference may be had to the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594:
"35. The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of Page 6 of 9 recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency.
36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. 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 and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that 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 Page 7 of 9 revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.
40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision."
Thus, without any reason being ascribed, this Court is not in a position to decide the correctness of the order vis-à-vis the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Moreover, when this Court remitted the matter to the Director for de novo enquiry, it was incumbent upon him to consider each of the contentions raised before him and answer the same supported by reasons. Since important issues was raised relating to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice as also the proportionality of the punishment imposed, the Director ought to have applied his mind to the same vis-à-vis the materials on record instead of mechanically rendering a finding entirely unsupported by reasons. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, which is therefore, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Director to hear the Page 8 of 9 appeal afresh. It is further directed that the Director shall render specific findings backed by adequate reasons on each of the issues so framed. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks. For convenience, the parties are directed to appear before the Director on 18th March, at 3.30 p.m. on which date, a date of hearing shall be fixed.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
..................................
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 14th March, 2023/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Page 9 of 9