1991 Supreme(Raj) 769
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Prabhu Lal Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P. No. 9 of 1987.
Decided On : 11-07-1991
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Rastogi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Parihar, Addl. Govt. Advocate.
A quasi-judicial authority is required to pass a speaking order which contains reasons for its decision and communicates those reasons to the affected party. This requirement is essential for the principles of natural justice and for the effective exercise of the power of judicial review.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY ACTION - ORDER OF PUNISHMENT - SPEAKING ORDER - REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS - COMMUNICATION OF REASONS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1958 - RULE 16(9), 16(10), 16(12), 30(2).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was placed under suspension and an enquiry was initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. After the conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing a penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice, but the Disciplinary Authority passed an order imposing a penalty of removal from service without giving any reasons. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary, Education, and a review petition before the Governor, but both were dismissed without giving any reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority was in violation of the principles of natural justice and was liable to be quashed. The Court also held that the appellate order and the review order were not speaking orders and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 30(2) of the Rules. The Court further held that the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority, and the reviewing authority must pass orders which indicate application of mind and that the appellate authority is under a statutory obligation to pass a speaking order in conformity with Rule 30(2) of the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority was in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appellate order and the review order were speaking orders and complied with the requirements of Rule 30(2) of the Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority was in violation of the principles of natural justice because it did not contain any reasons and did not communicate the reasons to the petitioner. The Court held that the requirement of passing a speaking order is one of the essential requirements of the principles of natural justice which has to be complied with by every quasi-judicial authority. The Court further held that the Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the material which has come before it, consider that material objectively and then record its findings; conclusions with reasons. 2. The Court held that the appellate order and the review order were not speaking orders and did not comply with the requirements of Rule 30(2) of the Rules because they did not contain any reasons for rejecting or accepting the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the memo of appeal and the review petition. The Court held that the appellate authority is under a statutory obligation to pass a speaking order in conformity with Rule 30(2) of the Rules.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the orders dated 7-7-80, 15-6-81, and 1-1-81. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and grant him consequential benefits. The Court also directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner who had joined service as L.D.C. was appointed as Accounts Clerk after passing qualifying examination meant for the post of Accounts Clerk. In the year 1970 he was posted at Government College, Karauli. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Principal, Government College, Karauli vide order dated 12-7-70. A memorandum dated 19-2-74 was issued by the Director of College Education Rajasthan Jaipur and an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Thereafter to be referred as 'the Rules'), was initiated against the petitioner. Two criminal complaints were also filed against the petitioner by the Principal of the College alleging embazzlement and fraud but nothing was found against the petitioner. The petitioner made several applications for inspection of the record. According to him full record was not shown to him and, therefore, he could not submit a proper reply. Without giving full opportunity of filing a reply, Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was conducted in several stages and by different Enquiry Officers. After conclusion of the enquiry a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28-4-79 by the Director of Education proposing a penalty of dismissal from service. Copy of Enquiry Report was sent to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 23-7-79 and thereafter the Director College Education passed an order on July 7, 1980 and a penalty of removal from service was imposed on petitioner. It was also ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled to anything else than the subsistence allowance as already paid to him for the period of suspension. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Secretary Education and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 15-6-81. A review petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Rules before the Hon'ble Governor was also dismissed and the petitioner has been communicated with the decision vide order dated 1-1-86.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service as well as the orders passed in appeal and review petition on the grounds that departmental enquiry has been held in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Rules. The petitioner has alleged that proper opportunity of defence was not given to him in as much as he was neither allowed inspection of the documents nor was he allowed copies of the documents for the purposes of filing reply to the Charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer also did not summon the record. The Enquiry Officer did not summon the witnesses whose names were given by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the charges levelled against him were absolutely vague and the Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence properly. While challenging the three orders, the petitioner has stated that they are non speaking orders. Appellate order has been passed in violation of Rule 30 (2) of the Rules.
3. No reply to the Writ Petition has been filed by the respondents despite the fact that the Writ Petition has remained pending for over four years.
4. The main contention advanced by Shri Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order of punishment passed by the Director College Education on July 7, 1980 is absolutely laconic. The order does not contain reasons. It is not a speaking order. This order is not in conformity with Rule 16(9) and 16(12) of the Rules. The Disciplinary Authority did not objectively consider the reply filed by the petitioner. None of the contentions raised in the reply has been dealt with. Argument of the learned counsel is that passing of a speaking order is one of the essential requirements of the principles of natural justice which has to be complied with by every quasi-judicial authority. These reasons have to be communicated to the delinquent. In t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
