@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Under the provisions of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ''1974 Act''), the petitioner filed an application on or about 12-6-1975 before the Govt for alteration of his date of birth from 6-11-1922 to 7-5-1924. Under sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 of the 1974, Act the application made by the petitioner was referred to the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. in the Law Dept for enquiry and report. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner in addition to examining himself, examined four witnesses in support of his cases and produced a large number of documents. On consideration of the evidence placed before him, the Enquiry Officer by his report dt. 28-7-1976 (Ext. ''A'') held that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 7-5-1924 and therefore advised the Govt to accept the said date as the date of birth of the petitioner. On an examination of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Govt by its order No. CI. 330 ACI 76, dt. 7-12-1976 (Ext. ''B'') refused to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and rejected the application of the petitioner, the validity of which is challenged by him in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
2. Mr. B. Gopalaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the reasons given by the Govt in its order dt. 7-12-1976 were, manifestly illegal and its order was not a speaking order and is therefore liable to be interfered under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
3. For appreciating the contention of the petitioner it is necessary to set out the order of the Government in full which reads thus:
"Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka
Sub: Enquiry in respect of alteration of date of birth of Shri Manik Bhat, Joint Director of Industries and Commerce-orders passed.
Order No. CI 330 ACI 76 Bangalore, dt. the 7th Decr, 1976.
Read: 1. Representation dt. 12-6-1975 from Shri Manik Bhat, Joint Director of Industries and Commerce and Secretary, Board of Management for Govt Industrial concerns, Bangalore.
2. Report dt. 28-7-1976 of the Enquiry Officer
Preamble: Shri Manik Bhat, Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, working as Secretary, Board of Management for Government Industrial Concerns, Bangalore, has made a representation dated 12-6-1975 to Government for correcting his date of birth from 6-11-1922 (which was entered in his service records) to 7-5-1924 in accordance with the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974.
The Enquiry Officer and Solicitor and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government. Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, has in his report dated 28-7-1976, advised the Government of Karnataka to allow the petition and to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as 7-5-1924 instead of 6-11-1922.
ORDER
The Enquiry Officer, placing too much emphasis on the horoscope produced by Shri Manik Bhat, has concluded that his date of birth should be changed from 6-11-1922 to 7-5-24.
The originality of the horoscope has not been established beyond doubt. It is also not known whether the date mentioned in the horoscope if it is true, corresponds to 7-5-1924. Two Astrologers have been examined but both are prosecution witnesses.
There are glaring contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses as well as in the Enquiry Report.
After examining the case in detail, Government are pleased to reject the Enquiry Report dated 28-7-1976.
By order and in the Name of the Governor of Karnataka,sd/- V.S. NadakarniUnder Secretary to Govt, Commerce & Industries Dept."
4. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer shows that he has examined the oral and documentary evidence placed before him and has given reasons for accepting the application of the petitioner. On the other hand the Government has rejected the report of the Enquiry Officer for reasons that are somewhat difficult to understand and follow. Even though the Government is not expected to give elaborate reasons and discuss the matter at length as a Judicial Tribunal, it is necessary for the Government to give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons however briefly it may be for differing from the report of the Enquiry Officer. In my view a proceeding under the provisions of ''the 1974 Act'', is a quasi-judicial proceeding and therefore the Government while rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. A quasi-Judicial authority is required to give reasons for its conclusions and that principle is succinctly enunciated by our Supreme Court in Seimens Engineering and Manufacturing Co., v. Union of India, AIR. 1976 SC. 1785, In Seimens Engineering case, AIR. 1976 SC. 1785, the Supreme Court has impressed on administrative and quasi-judicial authorities to give sufficiently clear, explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. In my view, the impugned order of Government which does not give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons is not a speaking order and is liable to be quashed.
5. Let me now examine thereasons given by Government in its order dated 7-12-1976 (Ext. ''B'').
6. In the first reason Government has stated that the Enquiry Officer had placed too much emphasis on the horoscope produced by the petitioner before him which is factually incorrect. In para 12 of his report the Enquiry Officer has expressly refused to place any reliance on the horoscope (Exhibit P-15) produced by the petitioner. In the other parts of his report also, the Enquiry Officer has not placed any reliance on the horoscope produced by the petitioner. Mr. C. Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, urged before me that the Government instead of referring to the predictions of Astrologers marked as Ext. 5 and 5A has inadvertently used the word ''horoscope'' and therefore I should examine the order of Government on that basis, Suffice it to say that under Art. 226 of the Constitution it is not open to me to examine the master as if it is an appeal and reconstruct the order of Government. I therefore, reject this submission of Sri C. Shivappa.
7. In the second reason Government has stated that the originality of the horoscope has not been established beyond doubt. It is rather difficult to understand what exactly Government meant and intended to convey by this reason. I have already shown that the the Enquiry Officer has not accepted the horoscope Ext. P-15 and has rejected the same. When that is so, the reason given by Govt that the originally of the horoscope has not been established beyond doubt whatever the meaning it had in its mind and intended to convey also falls to the ground.
8. In the third reason Government has stated that the corresponding English date cannot made out from the horoscope Exhibit P-15. Ascertainment of the corresponding English date does not depend on the horoscope written in Hindu Calendar. In any event that cannot be a ground for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer.
9. In the fourth reason Government has sated that the Astrologers that have been examined are prosecution witnesses. Assuming that the witnesses arc prosecution witnesses which term is totally inapt, their evidence cannot be rejected solely and blindly on the ground that they are prosecution witnesses.
10. In the fifth and the last reason Government has held that there are glaring contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses as well as in the Enquiry Report. In the course of the order or in the preamble of the order, Government has nor set-out as to what are the contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses and the report of the Enquiry Officer. By merely characterising that there are contradictions, Government cannot refect the report of the Enquiry Officer.
11. Under the provisions of ''the 1974 Act'' Government has no doubt the power to accept or reject the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is also open tothe Government to re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions and reject the report of the Enquiry Officer. But before doing so, the Government is required to give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of its order which are lacking in the impugned order.
12. I therefore hold that the impugned order of Government suffers from patent illegalities apparent on the face of the record resulting in failure of justice and is therefore quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, with liberty to Government to re-examine the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by me in this order. Ordered accordingly.
13. Rule made absolute.
14. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
