A reasoned order is essential in disciplinary proceedings to uphold principles of natural justice, and failure to provide one invalidates the decision.

Order :

“The principles of natural justice ensure that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done as well.” A reasoned order is one of the fundamental requirements of fair administration. It holds utmost significance in ensuring fairness. The courts now term it as the third principle of natural justice.

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.05.2000 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Tonk by which the petitioner, a Police Constable, has been punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Deputy Director General of Police, Jaipur Range- II, Jaipur, (for short, ‘the Appellate Authority’) however, the same was rejected vide order dated 31.10.2000. Thereafter, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the State and the same was also rejected vide order dated 23.05.2002.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge-sheet under Rule 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner with the charge that two accused persons namely Kamal Shringi and Badri were handed over to the petitioner along with two other Police Officials namely, Head Constable- Moti Lal and Constable-Ram Prasad for escorting them to Court but in the meantime one of the accused persons (Badri) absconded from their custody on account of negligence of the petitioner and other co-delinquents. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner, wherein it was specifically mentioned that one of the accused persons, Kamal Shringi, wanted to answer the nature’s call, hence, on instructions of the Head Constable-Moti Lal, the petitioner took him to the urinals for the aforesaid purpose and in his absence the other accused person Badri, absconded from the custody of Head Constable- Moti Lal and Constable- Ram Prasad. Counsel argues that the petitioner was not responsible for the above incident. However, this fact was not duly considered during the course of enquiry and subsequently, the impugned order was passed by which the petitioner was subjected to compulsory retirement. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, a statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, was submitted before the Deputy Director General of Police, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 31.10.2000 in a cursory manner, without recording any finding and without passing a reasoned and speaking order. Counsel submits that the aforesaid appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority with the finding that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority was required to decide the appeal of the petitioner by providing reasons and considering the averments mentioned therein, but no reasons were recorded and the order impugned was passed in a single line. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Reviewing Authority, but the said review petition was also dismissed in similar manner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that two accused persons were entrusted to three Police Officials for safe custody and transportation to the Court, but due to the negligence of all the three Police Officials including the petitioner, the incident occurred and one of the accused persons absconded from their custody. Counsel submits that the aforesaid incident occurred on account of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and other co-delinquents. Consequently, under these circumstances, the order impugned was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of compulsory r