Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Udaypal Singh vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh on 2 April, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.060/00104/2017 Chandigarh, this the 2"¢ day of April, 2018 Udaypal Singh, aged 50 years, son of Sh. Dhani Ram, resident of House No. 13, Sector 17, Police Complex Chandigarh, presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters and PCR, Chandigarh (Group B) » Applicant (Argued by: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate} VERSUS
1. Union Territory Chandigarh, through its Administrator.
2. Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh. Af 7
3. Inspector Generakof Police, Union Tertitory, Chandigarh.
mespondents dated 10/11.01.2012 {Annexure A-6), whereby punishment of forfeiture of four years' approved service for increments has been imposed upon him, dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure A-9}, by virtue of which his request to reconsider the quantum of punishment was rejected by the Competent Authority, dated 29.09.20 15 endorsed on 14.10.2015 (Annexure A-11) vide which his statutory appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and dated 06.09.2016, endorsed on 27.09.2016, (Annexure A-13), by means of which his revision petition was dismissed, by the Revisional Authority. .
<eeen Oi i fo t O.A. Na. 060/00104/2017
2. The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant O.A., and expasited from the record, is that the applicant was working as Inspector/SHO in Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, at the relevant time. He along with some other officers was stated to have committed some negligence/misconduct, during the course of performing their official duty. Initially, a magisterial inquiry was ordered, which involved the applicant and other officers, vide report dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure A-1), which was submitted to the Competent Authority.
3. AS a consequenc icant, along with other police officers, was:.char: following manner, vide impugned memo:of chareés*d " SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION:
A magisterial © Fidnapping atid subsequ wherein prima police personnel i.
date of ¢ eccurrence whereas he was aware of the kidnapping for ransom at about 07.14 PM on 21.12.2010 and the case was registered after much delay at about 10.00 PM.
He did not meet the family of the victim till 11.30 AM on the next day and that too for barely a few minutes after he had finished his normal work including other administrative duties before rushing off for a meeting with the DIG on tree plantation thus showing his casual approach.
He again did not reach the Police Post Burail on 22.12.2016 til 01.45 PM and that too after Inspector Narinder Singh informed him that the family was getting restive about giving money to the kidnappers.
He did not take initiative and failed to build a relationship of trust with the victim's family due to which they did not have full faith in the efforts being made by the police. He failed to properly organize the entire process of forming teams to work in co-ordination with each other and his personal liaison with the family started after 02.00 PM on 22.12.2010, almost 21 hours after the first ransom call was made. He was responsible for the loss of time and did not act in a professional and responsible manner at the initial stage in this case which was crucial as this time could have been used by the police to build a humane and trustworthy relationship with the family of the victim and plan fer a coordinated joint line of action.
~3- O.A. No. 060/00104 /2017 He has not discharged his duties in a responsible manner and has failed to plan, properly lead the vigil operation of payment of ransom money. He was evasive and put the entire responsibility of the initial investigation on Insp. Narinder Singh Patiel. He shirked from his responsibility as SHO Police Station-34 being the chief investing officer and later on during the vigil operation put the blame for failure to follow and apprehend the culprits on DSP Vuay Kumar the then SDPO- South and Senior Officers.
2. Insp. Narinder Singh-344/CHG It is alleged that he failed to rush to the Police Post immediately and meet the family as soon as the first ransom call was received at 04.22 PM on 21.12.2010. he adopted a casual approach in handling the important case of the kidnapping of a child for ransom in his a area and his pleading that initially he was in the court altitude, He failed. to take prompt action and neither directed SI Balraj Singh to rush to the police post, nor instructed him to register the case and pass on the information to the Senior Officers without any delay.
He has not passed this information regarding the incident of kidnapping to his Senior Officers and intimated Insp. Udaypal Singh, the then SHO Police Station-34 at 07.14 PM on 21.12.2010, despite learning about the disappearance of the child and receiving ransom call from unknown person.
_#He nas also ¥ 07 '00 P PM when he claims to he é 'Beek searching for the child.
He failed to take thmely action even when he came to know about the ransom call when he reached the police past at 07.00 PM and he took another two horus to contact the family.
He failed to act in a prompt and responsible manner and his casual and careless attitude in handling the kidnapping case initially led to loss of valuable time which could have been used in tracking the victim and culprits by winning the confidence of the family of the victim.
The lapses committed by the above said police personnel amount to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty on their part."
4. In pursuance thereof, the applicant filed the reply, which was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, it was decided to hold a regular departmental inquiry and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. He concluded that the charged alleged against the applicant were duly proved on all counts, vide inquiry report dated 22.06.2011 ")
-4- O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 (Annexure A-3}). Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (for brevity, SCN) 19.10.2011 (Annexure A-4) was served upon him, and he submitted his reply dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure A-5) to the SCN. However, the Competent Authority was stated to have awarded the pumishment of forfeiture of four years' approved service for increments with permanent effect vide impugned order dated 10/11.01.2012, (Annexure A-6).
5. In the wake of 1s statutory appeal (Annexure A-7}, the punishment order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Punishing Authority, with a direction to have a re-look and if, required, conduct an independent mnquary by another officer, after affording full opportuni y eto the applican to. project his stand, vide order dated 18.0 20128 Authority..
6. Sequelly, 1 as relevant, is that despit Authority, uired, conduct an ficer, the Competent independent inquiry, * authority, without somata with thé directions contained in the order of the first Appellate Authority, has again passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure A-9}, in a very routine manner.
7. Dissatisfied thereby, the appeal dated 03.02.2015 (Annexure A-10), preferred by the applicant, was dismissed, in a very casual manner, vide impugned order dated 29.09.2015/14.10.2015 (Annexure A-11), by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, he filed Revision Petition dated 07.11.2015 (Annexure A-12}, which, too, \y ~5- O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.09.2016 {Annexure A- 13}, by the Revisional Authority.
8. <Agerieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present O.A., challenging the impugned orders and actions of the respondents, on the following grounds:-
") That the show cause notice dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure A-4) would show that the competent authority had agreed with the inquiry report and thereafter had issued show cause notice to the applicant. Meaning thereby before supplying a copy of the inquiry report the competent authority already made up its mind to impose the punishment on the applicant. The Inspector General of Police, committed grave error by accepting the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer without calling for the comments from the applicant on the inquiry report"
{ii} That against the order of punishment the applicant had filed a detailed appeal (Annexure A-10) to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, UT, Chandigarh. However, without taking into consideration the detailed. sub 8 taade by the ae rne os in his case ® the magi consideration :
was also taken'into could not ha That conducted in. a cursory "nine a tuimber of persons neident. "The witnesses of _ ere biased towards the "of cer. did .
did not touch | the fitaliss 168, {vi} That moreover, witnesses who had appear rogulie inquiry attributed any misconduct or lapse on the p: fthe applicant. {vit} That the Inspector General of Police did not adhere to the remand order passed by the Home Secretary in which he had directed the punishing authority to have a relock and if required conduct an independent inquiry by another officer after affording full opportunity to the applhcant to praject his stand. However, the Inspector General of Police kept the remand back order pending for almost two years and passed the same order without conducting any independent inquiry by another officer and without affording any opportunity to the applicant which was the directions passed by the Home Secretary. It is settled lew that the authority cannot bye-pass the remand order and can go into the issue only as per the remand order passed by the appellate authority. Once the Home Secretary/appellate authority had specifically directed to the punishing authority to have a relook and to conduct an independent inquiry by another officer atfording full opportunity to the applicant the sarne was required to be done by the punishing authority. (viii! That during the departmental inquiry a request was made to the inquiry officer to supply the documents on 15.02.2011 but the inquiry officer did not supply the decuments and therefore, this caused grave injustice to the applicant.
(ix) Thatitis important to mention here that one Ram Kumar and his sons resident of Burail were arrested in criminal case FIR No. 160 under Section 147/148/149/323/506 IPC and Sections 6 O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act dated 11.5.2010 registered at police Station Sector 34 and many other criminal cases were pending against him and his sons and he was leading the protest agitation before the authorities and he was also present in departmental proceedings on 21.3.2011. The prosecution witnesses namely Sukhwinder Singh, Har jinder Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur did hot give regular departmental inquiry who were the family members of the complainant.
(x) That it is a case of no evidence as none of the prosecution witness who has appeared in the departmental inquiry against the applicant had testified against him. There was no evidence before the inquiry officer to hold the applicant guilty.
{xi} That there was no standing order issued by the Inspector General of Police regarding kidnapping for ransom case. Only Standing order No. 45/2010 was in place which was regarding duties of Police regarding missing persons and unidentified dead bodies. The standing order no. 45/2010 is being annexed herewith as Annexure A-19, Now after the Magisterial Inquiry, standing Order No. 47/2011 has been issued regarding kidnapping for ransom case. The standing order no. 47/2011 is being annexed herewith as Annexure A-20. {xii} That the punishment order has been passed by the Inspector General of Police on the premise that it was the applicant who was supervising the operation. - er, it-has been proved in the departmental enquiry, fi x 8 ofewitnesses that it was instructions. 2 Vijay Kumar.
N. S. Patial wh was 'lice Post Burail ithe applicant time and was of the same ¢ rank ag 'Inap come i evidence that the iene on the day of the applicant. "Any atiributed to. the, orci applicant who, w:
That moreover: i immediately informed:
occurrence and ther operations.
{xiv} That grave injustic Inspector N.S, Patial who was incharge of Police Post Burail has been punished with stoppage of 2 increments with permanent effect whereas the applicant has been punished with stoppage of four increments with permanent effect.
{xv} That the findings of the Magisterial Enquiry are perverse and contrary to facts and have been proved to be wrong in the regular departmental enquiry. The applicant has been held guilty in the Magisterial enquiry by observing that the plea taken that the lifting of trap was on the instructions of seniors seerns to be questionable whereas in the regular enquiry from the statement of witnesses including that of PW6 Sukhwinder Singh, PW 14 SI Sarwan Singh, PW 16 HC Kabul Singh and PW 17 Inspector Amanjot Singh it was duly proved that the trap was lifted on the instructions of D.S.P. Vijay Kumar."
9. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence Sr | s of events, in detail, in all, the applicant claims that there is no evidence on record, against him. He has been wrongly punished.
~7- ©.A. No. 060/00104/2017 Even, the Competent Authority has not strictly adhered to the directions, contained in the order of the first Appellate Authority. His appeal and revision petition were wrongly rejected by the relevant authorities, in a very casual manner. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the impugned orders, in the manner, indicated hereinabove, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
10, On the contrary, the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant and filed written statement, wherein it was pleaded that the entire procedure, relating to the disciplinary inquiry against the applicant was duly, followed and an inquiry was vigil operation of payment of ransom money. He was evasive and put the entire responsibility of initial investigation on another inspector Narinder Singh Patial. It was alleged that he shirked from his responsibility as SHO Police Station -- 34 being the Chief Investigating Officer and later on during the vigilance operation, put the blame, for failure to follow and apprehend the culprits, on DSP Vijay Kumar, the then SDPO- South, and Senior officers.
ll. Likewise, the inquiry proceedings were stated to have been duly conducted, after providing an adequate opportunity at every >) Se
8. O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 level to the applicant, as per the relevant rules and procedures. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the written statement, and in order to avoid the possibility of repetition of facts, suffice it to say that while virtually acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of the impugned orders and their action, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations and grounds, contained in the O.A., and prayed for its dismissal. That is how we are seized of the matter.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance, and after considering the entire matter, are of the firm view that the as awarded, to the applicant, vide impugned ordet dated 10 11.01.2012 (Annexure A-
6), by the Competent Authority Ss
14. Dissatisfied with the 1st order of punishment, the applicant filed a statutory appeal, raising a variety of important issues (Annexure A-7). Keeping in view the nature of evidence and other attending circumstances, the first Appellate Authority accepted his appeal and remanded the case to the Punishing Authority, to have a re-look and if required, conduct an independent inquiry, by another officer, after affording full opportunity, to the applicant, vide order dated 18.09.2012 {Annexure A-8}, which in substance, is as under:-
On O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 "The undersigned being the appellate authority have perused the record made available during the course of personal hearing, order imposing the punishment and the submissions made in the appeal and have found that Inspector Udaypal Singh No. 252/CHG took keen interest in the performance of his duties in the incidence of kidnapping of Master Khushpreet. He joined the enquiry officer during the course of Magisterial as well as departmental enquiry. The allegations made by Inspector Udaypal Singh No. 252/CHG that the prosecution witness were not examined and the charge leveled in the show cause notice etc. were not examined in true perspective. The submissions made by Inspector Udaypal Singh No. 252/CHG, in his appeal as well as during the course of personal hearing carry weight.
In exercise of the powers conferred under the rules, I have come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to Inspector Udaypal Singh, No. 252/CHG is not in-commensurate with the guilt alleged to have been committed in handling the case of kidnapping of Master Khushpreet. I, therefore, remand the case to the punishing authority (IGP) to have a re-look and if, required conduct an independent » enquiry by another officer affarding full opportunity to Inspector Udaypal Singh, No. 252/CHG to project his stand."
applicant, in a veryocasua 09.01.2015 (Annexu juiry as well as in the Git) made by the applicant levelled in the show cause notice were not examined in the true perspective.
16. Agreeing with the above mentioned facts/submissions of the applicant, and material on record, the first Appellate Authority came to a definite conchision that the punishment awarded to the applicant is not in commensurate with the guilt alleged to have been committed in handling the cases in question. As a consequence thereof, the Appellate Authority rermanded the case back to the Punishing Authority te have a re-look and if required,
-10- O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 conduct an independent inguiry, by another officer, after affording full opportunity to the applicant, to project his stand, vide order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure A-8}
17. Strangely enough, the Inquiring Authority did not, at all, adhere to the pointed directions of the 1st Appellate Authority, and reiterated the punishment already awarded to the applicant, in a very casual manner, vide a very brief impugned order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure A-9]. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"{ have looked into the matter again in compliance with orders of the appellate authority, as above. After going through the entire record pertaining ta this matter, I have come to the conclusion that the then IGP, being the punishi authority, has already taken a very lenient view, dest officials, substantia edb inquiry officer, ;
punishment. 1, order. He has ON directions of the iene, with impunity, and did not record a single reason in this relevant connection.
19. Not only that, neither the Punishing Authority has applied its mind, nor considered the desirability of de-novo inquiry by another officer, as directed by the Appellate Authority, for the reasons best known to it. What to talk of considering various issues, raised by the applicant, in his reply to SCN, even the Punishing Authority bas not complied with the directions, issued by the 1st Appellate Authority. Moreover, there is not a whisper in this relevant connection in the impugned order. Therefore, ance the Appellate Ss Se
-il- O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 Authority has directed to consider the desirability of holding a fresh inquiry by some other officer, in that eventuality, indeed, it was the mandatory duty of the Punishing Authority to examine the matter, in the right perspective, which goes to the root of the case, in compliance with the pointed directions, contained in the order of the ist Appellate Authority, which is totally lacking in the present case.
20, Perhaps the indicated vital issues escaped the notice as the same very mistake was repeated by the second Appellate Authority, in the impugned order dated 29.09,2015/14.10.2015 (Annexure A-
11}, and the Revisional Authori in the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexur :
2 at only sketchy, Had import of the directions, contained in the order of the Appellate Authority, then the consequences may have been different. Such authorities are required to consider the entire matter in the right perspective, and then to pass a speaking and reasoned order, to decide the real controversy of the applicant, which is totally missing in the present case.
22. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that Central Vigilance Commission in its wisdom has taken a conscious decision and
-12- O.A. No. 060 /00104 /2017 issued instructions vide Office Order No.51/09/03 dated 15.09.2003, which reads as under:-
"Subject: - Need for self-contained speaking and reasoned order to be issued by the authorities exercising disciplinary powers.
Sir /Madarn, It was clarified in the Department of Personnel & Adtninistrative Reforms' OM No. 134/11/81/AVD-I dated 13.07.1981 that the disciplinary proceedings against employees conducted under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1968, or under any other corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial im nature and therefore, it is necessary that orders issued by such authorities should have the attributes of a judicial order. It was also clarified that the recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi- judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy, or reached on ground of policy or expediency. Such orders passed by the competent disciplinary/appellate authority as do not contain the reasons on the basis whereof the decisions communicated by that orderswere reached, are liable to be heid invalid if challenged i in a.cot ithe facts and 2 and. t¢ "own. conclusions, though it may (alin Sy ve. There have been some ca i Be the representation OF: the « concerned, i eniployee'o on: "the "indings of the inquiring asathority: Court is i ave: squashed both the orders on the
3. It is once again brought to the notice of all disciplinary /appellate authorities that Disciplinary Authorities should issue a_ self- contained, speaking and reasoned orders conforming to the aforesaid legal requirements, which must indicate, inter-alla, the application of mind by the authority issuing the order."
93. Exhibiting the necessity of passing of speaking orders, the Hon"ble Apex Court in the well celebrated case of M/s Mahavir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others 1970 SCC (1) 764 which was subsequently followed in a line of judgments. Having considered the legal requirement of passing speaking order by the authority, it was ruled that "recording of reasons in support f a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority
-13- O.A. No. 060/00104/2017 ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim". It was also held that "while it must appear that the authority entrusted with the quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion of the problem before him: it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution'. Such authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking order
24. Sequelly, in the case of S.N. Muk erjee Vs. Union of India, 1990 (5) SLR 8 ¥ ve, Apex "Dispénsation 'has observed as under:-
tural justice 'is to prevent i it As | pointed out "38, The object und miscarriage 4 justice :
fairness" in thes) expanding | horiza concluded that except in ee where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required te record the reasons for its decision."
25. An identical view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in cases MMRDA Officers Association Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority & Another, 2005 (2) RSJ, $62 SC and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem Vs. Madhusudhan Rao JT 2008 (2) SC 253. 20. Again, a similar question came to be decided by the Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, 2008 (2) SCT 429, and the Court has ruled as under :-
y) ¥
26. Ramesh Kumar, 2009 (2) SCT 145 (SC}, "14. O.A. Ne. 060/00104/2017 "6.xxxx The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order mot sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. ws. Battan and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607}. About two decades back in State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirae Chawan, {1981} 4 SCC 129, the desirability of a speaking order was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222. 7} In Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 519, this Court has held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes ifeless, 8} Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, Likewise, in the decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. ruled as under:-
"6. Reasons introduoe ce 3 seen judicially. recognized as a ahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and | ors. '( Q declaration of, Jaw ?
Bate by an, orders Lord Denning MLR. in Union (1971 (1) AI E.R, 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley} Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "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". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis om recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts te perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter hefere Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him, One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance. Chairman and Managing Director United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar, 20038 (4) SCC 364 ; [2003(2} SLR 445 (Sc}."
the Hon"ble Court has a "15- O.A. No. 060/00104/2017
27. Not only that, the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others (2009) 4 SCC 240 has in para 8 held as under:-
"8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can @ person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation".
28. Sequelly, the Hon"ble Apex Court has held in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & . has held.as under :-
always beef to record reasons, even in uch decisions affect anyone administrative prejudicially.., b. A quasi-judicial au to: serve the wider e done it must also considerations, f, Reasons have virtually-bec decision making process judicial, quasi judicial and even by administrative bodies. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
bs' 8 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 te demonstrate by reason that th 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. Ifa Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible te know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
1. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision
-16- O.A. No. 060/00104 /2017 A making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to Ly "oD errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737}.
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates fram 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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons nrust be given for judicial decisions".
o. In all comzmion 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", 29, Even Hon"ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has taken similar view in a number of cases including in Dhani Ram Chaudhary Vs. State of H 1998 (3) RSJ, 609 (DB) and rder..of the Disciplinary hich deserves to be and is hereby anerpif the basic order is set aside being illegal, t Appellate Authority 'fall under their own hereinabove, the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and cannot legally be sustained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. As such, the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the indicated judgments is mutatis mutandis applicable to the instant controversy and is a complete answer to the problem in hand.
@w
31. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
~17- O.A. No. 060/00104 /2017
32. In the light of the aforesaid prismatic reasons, and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of further consideration of the matter, the instant O.A. is partly accepted. The impugned orders, dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure A-9) of the Punishing Authority, dated 99.09.2015/14.10.2015 {Annexure A-11} of the Appellate Authority, dated 06.09.2016/27.09.2016 (Annexure A-13} of the Revisional Authority, are hereby set aside. As a consequence thereof, the case is remitted back to the Inquiring Authority to re- consider the entire matter, and to strictly comply with the directions, contained in the first. order of the Appellate Authority, and then to pass a speaking & reasoned order, and in accordance with law, as expeditiouslyas possible. However, the parties are left to bear their own:costs.
JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR} (A) nw