1972 Supreme(Raj) 211

Rajasthan High Court
Tyagi, J.
Chenaram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1380 of 1972
Decided On : December 22, 1972

Headnote:(a) Precedents Supreme Court Decisions - In case of different decisions, where court finds it difficult to resolve the conflict it would follow the latest decisions.(b) Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 227 - Speaking order—Such order to contain reasons and grounds on which the same based - However, in a writ of certiorari, though the order removing the Pradhan was not a speaking order yet on perusal of papers it was evident that the Minister has perused the whole file and given full opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself Such an order cannot be challenged that it was not a speaking order.

       I need not discuss the Supreme Court authorities cited by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective stands because the opinion of the Supreme Court that an administrative body should pass an order supported by reasons while discharging its duties in a quasi-judicial manner stands divided and I find it difficult to reconcile these different opinions on some rational basis. This Court undoubtedly is bound by the law laid down by the Supreme Court, but when the law as laid down by the Supreme Court at different times is conflicting, then the only course left open to this Court is to follow the latest judgment of the Supreme Court.

       Held = In order to put a check on the exercise of arbitrary discretion by the executive authority acting in judicial capacity, the Supreme Court has laid considerable stress in various judgments cited above that the administrative authorities while acting in a quasi-judicial manner must turn out a speaking order so that such authorities may riot only not act in an arbitrary manner but a check of the superior authorities that can review such orders may become effective and they may also know exactly as to how the mind of the authority has worked while turning out the order impugned.

       Held = In view of these latest observations of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to hold that an executive or an administrative authority while discharging its quasi-judicial function must turn out a speaking order. It is true that the Supreme Court has on many occasions did not feel the necessity of speaking orders but this Court is bound by the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court which is the law of the land to be followed by the Courts in India. The reasons for turning out a speaking order as given by the Supreme Court are most convincing as this type of order puts a curb on the whim and caprice of the administrative authority while discharging its functions in a quasi-judicial manner and, therefore, I feel that speaking order is a must in the cases when matters are decided by the administrative or executive authority exercising its jurisdiction in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner under the provisions of some laws.

       Held = The petitioner has placedon record Ex. 1, which is said to be the order passed by the Minister to remove the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan. Mr. Raj Narain has placed on the record the minutes recorded by the Minister in paras 121 to 129 in the Secretariat file on the basis of which the impugned order was drawn by the Secretary. The nothings of the Minister are, therefore, the real order which has got to be scrutinised by this Court to resolve the controversy raised by the petitioner. In passing it may also be observed that the order Ex. 1 is not different from the nothings of the Minister on the file.

       Held = The Minister recorded his order in paras 121 to 129 after hearing the petitioner. In para 121 he mentions that Shri Chenaram has not produced any evidence or witnesses in support of his case and reiterated his stand contained in his explanation. He further states that he had gone through the entire file before recording his finding. It is specifically mentioned by the Minister that he had carefully gone through the report of the Collector and from that material he recorded a positive finding that the charge of giving beating to Shri Chatra Ram and giving maltreatment to him by petitioner is established. He has also mentioned in these nothings the charge that was levelled against the petitioner. From this order of the Minister, it is also apparent that a fair opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his evidence before the Minister but in spite of the time allowed to the petitioner he did not avail of this opportunity. According to the Minister, petitioner Chenaram had adopted delaying tactics and, therefore, the case could not be disposed of expeditiously. Since Chena Ram without producing any documentary or oral evidence in support of his defence expressed his desire to dispose of this matter expeditiously; therefore, the Minister recorded his finding and came to the conclusion that looking to the gravity of the charge, petitioner deserved to be removed from the office of Pradhan under sec. 40(1) of the 1959 Act.

       Held = On careful scanning of this order it is clear that the Minister had looked into the entire record and had carefully perused the report submitted by the Collector after making enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. The learned Minister appears to have agreed with the finding recorded by the Collector. It is true that the Minister has not recorded reasons for arriving at the conclusion but it is clear that he recorded his finding after hearing the petitioner and going through the record. This Court would have insisted for recording reasons if it were to exercise the supervisory jurisdi- ction under Art. 227 of the Constitution or the appellate jurisdiction, but since the matter has come up before it in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, it has simply to examine whether the order impugned is passed with jurisdiction observing the principles of natural justice and taking into consideration the entire material relevant for the purposes of disposing of the question in controversy. Ministers, who are drawn from public life, are not expected to be well- versed in writing orders like judicial officers; therafore, if the well-reasoned border is not turned out by a Minister, then it cannot be thrown out on the ground that the order did not contain reasons to support the finding. While disposing of the matters of this nature, if the Minister records clearly the material that was placed before Mm for his consideration, and that he had taken that material into consideration then it would satisfy some of the requirements of a speaking order. He is also expected to record the issue to be determined by him and then to record his finding thereon. The order must also make it clear that the procedure prescribed for disposing of such matters by the Minister has been followed and that the person against whom the impugned order is passed was afforded proper opportunity to meet the charges. In the present case, the jurisdiction of the Minister to dispose of the matter is not disputed. Thus, I find that the order does not lack any ingredient of a speaking order for the purposes of exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, (paras 22, 29, 30. 33, 34 and 35)