Satyen Vaidya, J
1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:-
“i). That the charge sheet dated 8th December, 2010, Inquiry report dated nil, proposed penalty in order dated 16.05.2013, penalty order dated 12th July, 2013 and rejection order dated 10th January, 2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.”
2. The petitioner faced a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the charges of dereliction and negligence in discharge of duties, disobedience to the orders of superiors, preparing a false document i.e. resignation of the Principal of the school Shri Ramesh Chand Patial and using unparliamentary language with his colleagues as well as other government officers.
3. Charges pertain to the year 2004-2005, when the petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant in GSSS, Kalol, District Bilaspur. Shri Ramesh Chand Patial was the Principal of the said school.
4. The Disciplinary Authority appointed the Principal, Government College, Una as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry report indicted the petitioner. The concluding para of the inquiry report read as under:-
“Keeping in view the facts reported in points no. 1 to 9 supported by annexure (I to xv) and also supported by the conclusion(s) made by the earlier Inquiry officers, it is concluded that the said charged official Sh. Bal Krishan had always been unpredictable, iratic, insincere, indecent, disobedient and a habitual offender. He indulged in taking extreme steps of tempering of evidence, dishonestly and forgery. He had been proved “not to be a trusty worthy official”.”
5. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17.07.2013 concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed major penalty under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and accordingly reduced the petitioner to lower stage in time scale of pay i.e. Rs.6400 from the existing stage in the initial of the scale of Rs.6400-10640 (pre-revised) with cumulative effect with effect from 1.08.2013. The petitioner, however, was allowed to earn increment in the lower scale after completion of period of one year from the date of reduction as in normal course.
6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the 1965 Rules before the prescribed Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioner with exception of modifying the penalty, which was allowed to remain in force for a period of three years only w.e.f. 01.08.2013.
7. The petitioner has assailed the inquiry proceedings, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and finally the order of Appellate Authority by way of instant petition.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record.
9. Since, major penalty under Rule 11 of 1965 Rules was imposed against the petitioner, he had statutory right to file appeal under Rule 23 of ibid Rules.
10. Petitioner has placed on record the grounds of appeal raised by him before the Appellate Authority which reveal that the petitioner had challenged the inquiry proceedings as also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. It was alleged that the petitioner was not allowed Defence Assistance by the Inquiry Officer. It was also alleged that despite repeated demands by the petitioner, documents relied upon by the prosecution were not made available to him. As per the petitioner, he was not even made aware of day today proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer and orders passed therein. Non supply of inquiry report to the petitioner before passing of order by Disciplinary Authority was another ground of challenge before the Appellate Authority.
11. Rule 26 of the 1965 Rules obligated the Appellate Authority to consider the following:-
“(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules have been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;
(b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and
(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe;”
12. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority reveals complete non compliance of above para meters. In fact the Appellate Authority has simply held that all the charges levelled against the official have been fully proved in the inquiry report, without furnishing any reason whatsoever for arriving at such a conclusion.
13. The Appellate Authority simply recorded the Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner in inquiry verbatim and thereafter without recording any reason, as noticed above, arrived at the conclusion concurring with the findings in the inquiry report and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner.
14. The recording of reason by a quasi judicial authority or even by an administrative authority is a clear manifestation of principle of natural justice. In The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. The Union of India and another, (1976)2 SCC 981 the three Judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is essential for administrative authorities and tribunals to accord fair and proper hearing to the petitioner sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them.
15. In S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990)4 SCC 594, the Constitutional Bench emphasising the importance of reasons for decision by administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions has held as under:-
“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 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 re- cording 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 revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.”
16. In State of Orissa and others vs. Chandra Nandi, (2019) 4 SCC 357, reiterating the principle the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the court/tribunal/authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981)4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, (1987)2 SSC 222, State of U.P. v. Battan (2001)10 SSC 607, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003)11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568).”
17. Reference can also be made to the following extract of the judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 03.03.2021 in CWP No. 1119 of 2021, titled as Babu Ram vs. Himachal Pradesh University:-
“7. 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 on 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 to perform the 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.
11. Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. 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 is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.
13. It is well settled that the orders made by the appellate authority must contain reasons for the conclusions reached. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Bhat vs. Union of India,AIR 1986 SC 1040 and Ram Chander vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173.
18. In absence of any reason being recorded by the Appellate Authority for passing the order against the petitioner, the said order is clearly suggestive of arbitrariness hence legally unsustainable.
19. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary (Higher Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Authority) is quashed and set aside with direction to the said Appellate Authority to reheard and reconsider the appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after affording him reasonable opportunity of being heard and by following all the tenets encompassed under principle of natural justice.
20. Since, the matter is quite old, Principal Secretary (Higher Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Authority) will make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and not later than three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment.
21. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.
