@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Sanjay Kumar, J.@mdashSuccessive disciplinary enquiries and denial of subsistence allowance during his suspension from service drove the appellant herein to file W.P.No.27527 of 2008 before this Court. By order dated 18.12.2008 the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal.
2. The appellant is a Junior Assistant/Inspector Auditor in the service of the A.P. State Wakf Board (for short, ''the Board''), Hyderabad, the respondent herein. He was placed under suspension by order dated 27.04.2006 in connection with the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (for short, ''NOC'') in respect of the land in, Sy. No. 141 Ongole, Prakasam District. After three changes of the Enquiry Officer, show-cause notice dated 04.12.2006 was issued to the appellant calling for his explanation. The appellant submitted his explanation on 30.12.2006. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 03.01.2007 holding that the land in Sy. No. 141 was not a wakf land and therefore no loss was caused to the Board by the issuance of the NOC. However, the Enquiry Officer found that the appellant had committed a mistake in corresponding directly with the District Registrar instead of going through the District Revenue Officer under whom he was working. He therefore recommended that the appellant should be ''censured'' and that the period of suspension should be treated as admissible leave.
3. Thereupon, the Board issued proceedings dated 26.04.2008, referring to the enquiry report dated 03.01.2007 and the orders of the Special Officer of the Board dated 18.04.2008 resolving to conduct a de novo enquiry into the matter; and appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct a second enquiry. Thereupon, charge memo dated 02.06.2008 was issued to the appellant by the Board calling upon him to submit his explanation. After the second enquiry, report dated 05.06.2008 was submitted to the Board, wherein the Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the appellant was not proved. It appears that no further action was taken by the Board in so far as these proceedings are concerned.
4. While so, on 05.03.2008, during the pendency of the aforementioned enquiry proceedings, a notice was published by the Board in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper referring to notice dated 20.02.2008 calling upon the appellant to submit his explanation with regard to five other charges. These five charges pertain to the issuance of a NOC in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.4, 159, 164 and 192 of Pernamitta Village, Santanutalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Having noticed the said publication, it appears that the appellant appeared before the Chief Executive Officer of the Board on 17.03.2008, received a copy of the charge memo dated 02.07.2007 and submitted a written representation of the same date requesting time for submitting his explanation. On the same day, by way of a separate representation, the appellant adverted to the fact that he was being continued under suspension since May, 2006 and that he had not been paid subsistence allowance from January, 2008. He furnished his postal address and requested for release of his subsistence allowance.
5. Thereafter, the appellant submitted his explanation on 24.03.2008 and prayed for his reinstatement in service. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.04.2008 holding that charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not proved. As regards charge 1, the Enquiry Officer found that the same was partly proved.
6. Acting thereupon, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board issued the impugned proceedings bearing F. No. E2/55/2006 -Supple dated 27.11.2008, appointing a two-men enquiry committee and ordering a de novo enquiry into the aforestated five charges and the additional charge that the appellant was deliberately avoiding receipt of the charge memo and escaping his liability. A reading of the said proceedings would indicate that the Special Officer of the Board, who was said to have examined the enquiry report dated 29.04.2008, found that the Enquiry Officer had committed an irregularity and accordingly the said report was not fit for consideration and acceptance. Therefore, the Board found it desirable to conduct a de novo enquiry by appointing a team of Enquiry Officers. Reference was also made therein to a criminal complaint lodged with the S.H.O., Ongole Rural P.S., Prakasam District, under FIR No.85 of 2008 for offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 405, 409 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Aggrieved by the institution of a de novo enquiry under the proceedings dated 27.11.2008, the appellant filed W.P.No.27527 of 2008 before this Court. He also aired his grievance with regard to non-payment of subsistence allowance from January, 2008. The learned single Judge relied upon the proceedings dated 12.12.2008 issued by the Board, which were produced before him and observed that subsistence allowance payable to the appellant from January, 2008, was being released. As regards the de novo enquiry, the learned Judge took note of the fact that the said enquiry was directed to be completed within one month and found no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Stating so, the learned judge dismissed the writ petition.
8. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that it was not legally permissible for the Board to institute successive enquiries upon the same charges and to continue his client under suspension indefinitely. The learned Counsel disputed the factum of remittance of the subsistence allowance notwithstanding the proceedings dated 12.12.2008. The learned Counsel also submitted that the learned single Judge had altogether overlooked the issues raised by him with regard to the validity of the de novo enquiry.
9. Per contra, Sri Shafat Ahmed Khan, learned Counsel for the Board, submitted that the endeavour of the Board was to protect and safeguard wakf property. The actions of the appellant are said to be an abuse of power and a failure in discharge of his legitimate duties, and therefore, it was found necessary to institute a de novo enquiry through a two-men committee. Learned Counsel pointed out that the enquiry committee was asked to submit its report within a period of one month as is clearly evident from the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2008 and submitted that no prejudice was therefore caused to the appellant. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel upon the counter-affidavit filed by the Board to state that the appellant had been paid subsistence allowance up to December, 2008. He also referred to the fact that criminal proceedings had been initiated under FIR No.85 of 2008 of Ongole Rural P.S. and prayed that the writ appeal be dismissed as the enquiry was already in progress.
10 .In his reply, the learned Counsel for the appellant adverted to the merits of the case and reiterated that subsistence allowance had only been paid to his client till December, 2008. He protested against his client being continued under suspension since April, 2006 and also the institution of one enquiry after the other on the same set of charges.
12. At the outset, certain factual aspects have to be borne in mind. The disciplinary proceedings in respect of the alleged irregularity committed by the appellant in respect of the land in SY. No. 141 in Ongole, Prakasam District, which formed the basis for his suspension from service under the proceedings dated 27.04.2006, culminated in the finding that he was not guilty. Relevant to note, even with regard to this charge, the Board having instituted one enquiry and invited a report, resorted to a second enquiry. Interestingly, the first Enquiry Officer had recommended the punishment of ''censure'' while the second Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the appellant was not proved in its entirety. It appears that upon the second Enquiry Officer''s report dated 05.06.2008, no further action was taken by the Board.
13. The second set of disciplinary proceedings pertained to five charges levelled against the appellant in respect of the lands in Pernamitta Village, Santanutalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. No separate orders were passed by the Board placing the appellant or continuing him under suspension in respect of these disciplinary proceedings. While that be so, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Board submitted his report dated 29.04.2008 holding that only one out of the five charges was partly proved. Prone to habit, the Board seems to have resorted routinely to a de novo enquiry under the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2008. Pertinent to note, the said proceedings do not even indicate as to why the findings of the first Enquiry Officer are found to be ''irregular and unfit for consideration or acceptance''.
14. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed in
15. In
16. In
6. ...Once a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be brought to its logical end meaning thereby a finding is required to be arrived at as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of charges leveled against him or not. In a given situation further evidences may be directed to be adduced but the same would not mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges levelled against him another inquiry would be directed to be initiated on the selfsame charges which could not be proved in the first inquiry.
17. In the light of the aforestated settled legal position, it is clear that the Board cannot casually resort to a succession of enquiries awaiting a report which is to its liking. The established facts demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 29.04.2008 held only one of the five charges levelled against the appellant to be partly proved. It appears that the Board, dissatisfied with such a finding, ordered a de novo enquiry under the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2008 and for good measure, appointed a two-men committee this time. Further, the sequence of events leading upto the issuance of the impugned proceedings clearly reflect a deliberate and concerted move on the part of the Board to target the appellant. Even in the first set of disciplinary proceedings, the Board had resorted to two successive enquiries on the same charge, but failed to secure a report against the appellant. In the meanwhile, it set in motion the second set of disciplinary proceedings and again failed in its endeavour to impeach the appellant before the first Enquiry Officer. Hence, the need for a de novo enquiry.
18. This practice of the Board in carelessly and callously discarding enquiry reports which are not to its liking and ordering one enquiry after the other without even disclosing the reasons which weighed with it for rejecting the findings of the previous Enquiry Officer is a clear transgression of the law and requires to be deprecated in the strongest terms.
19. In
28. ...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.
20. Again in
35. 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 decisions-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.
21. ''Reasons'' are the milestones which chart the journey of the ''decision-maker'' in reaching his destination. Absence of reasons thus leaves the decision-making process without a rudder and open to arbitrariness. Viewed in this light, the approach adopted by the Board of instituting de novo enquiries by appointing Enquiry Officers afresh without even setting aside the findings recorded by the earlier Enquiry Officer, giving due reasons therefor, is clearly unsustainable in law.
22. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned proceeding dated 27.11.2008 setting in motion a fresh enquiry against the appellant on the selfsame charges which were the subject matter of the enquiry report dated 29.04.2008 is illegal and arbitrary; and hence, liable to be set aside. The criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant will run their own course and have no bearing upon the disciplinary proceedings which had been continued by the Board itself, notwithstanding the registration of the FIR.
23. As regards the appellant''s continued suspension from service and payment of subsistence allowance, there was no separate order placing the appellant or continuing him under suspension in so far as the second set of disciplinary proceedings are concerned. The order of suspension dated 27.04.2006 was relatable only to the first set of disciplinary proceedings which concluded with the enquiry report dated 05.06.2008 giving the appellant a clean chit. Therefore, the continuance of the appellant under suspension after the said date is clearly without legal foundation and cannot be sustained.
24. As regards the payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant, by his representation dated 17.03.2008, furnished his postal address and requested for payment of his subsistence allowance. Relevant to note, by interim order dated 10.02.2009 passed in this appeal, this Court had directed release of the subsistence allowance payable to the appellant from January, 2008 onwards within a period of two weeks, if not already paid. It appears that subsistence allowance payable to the appellant has been remitted upto December, 2008, but not thereafter. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why subsistence allowance has not been paid to him for the period subsequent to December, 2008. Trite to state, a suspended employee is entitled as a matter of right to subsistence allowance as the relationship of employer-employee subsists
25. We therefore hold that the de novo enquiry instituted against the appellant under the impugned proceeding dated 27.11.2008 is without the sanction of law. The impugned proceeding dated 27.11.2008 is consequently set aside. The suspension of the appellant from service after 05.06.2008 is equally without legal basis. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith and shall be paid the arrears of subsistence allowance upto 05.0v6.2008. He is entitled to his full salary from 05.06.2008 upto the date of his reinstatement. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
