Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1731
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
K. Ganesan
Versus
The District Collector, Tirunelveli & Another
W.P. No.11722 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2012, (O.A.No.2923 of 2002)
Decided on : 04-04-2012
For the Petitioner:A.R. Nixon, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
Quasi-judicial authorities are required to pass orders with reasons for rejecting the grounds raised to challenge the order under appeal.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Removal from Service - The appellate authority's non-speaking order was set aside by the court as it did not provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's contentions, violating the requirement for quasi-judicial authorities to pass orders with reasons. The case was remitted back to the District Collector for reconsideration of the appeal in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order of removal from service issued by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. The charges against the petitioner were proved, and the punishment of removal from service was imposed. The petitioner appealed the order, but the appellate authority's non-speaking order was challenged in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority's order did not provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's contentions, violating the requirement for quasi-judicial authorities to pass orders with reasons. The court set aside the appellate authority's order and remitted the case back to the District Collector for reconsideration of the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the appellate authority's non-speaking order and the requirement for quasi-judicial authorities to provide reasons for their decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority exercising quasi-judicial authority is required to pass orders with reasons for rejecting the grounds raised to challenge the order under appeal, so that the Higher Court can understand the basis for the decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the District Collector, and remitted the case back to the District Collector for reconsideration of the appeal in accordance with law. The appellate authority was directed to pass a detailed speaking order, by dealing with the grounds of challenge, either accepting or rejecting it.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli in appeal filed by petitioner against the order of removal from service.
2. The petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 17(b) on the following charges:
"Charge No.1
AmbasamduramTaluk, Pathamadai Village without the Village account for S.No.314/1a has been created imaginary S.No.and without receiving any application or enquiry or sub division from 11 persons and created forged patta and got the signature of Assistant Tahsildar Rathna Singh and supplied by the then Village Administrative Officer David Jayaraj, for this forgery helped the persons.
Charge No.2
In the same Village as per the Village account book 45 sq.ft. land has been acquired for road in S.No.559/1 0.13.65 hectare land has been given to 18 persons, without any sub division the Village Assistant got the signature of Rathna Singh Assistant and helped to incorporate in the Pathamadai Village records.
Charge No.3
The demarcated land of vacant site as per the Village account to an extent of 0.39.25 hectare land in S.No.719/3 issued patta to 7 persons to an extent of 0.01.0 hectare without receiving any request or enquiry or subdivision and helped to get the signature of Rathna Singh Assistant Tahsildar and helped to enter into the Pathamadai Village Assistant Register and misused his power and also got patta in the name of his wife.
Charge No.4
The individual helped David Sayaraj VAO of Pathamadai Village Patta register and got the signature of Mr.Rathna Singh without following the Government Rules in house site No.158/1408 dated 18.04.1999 and house site No.45/1408 dated 16.04.1999 when no documents available in Ambasamduram Taluk Office."
3. The Enquiry Officer held that, the charges against petitioner were proved. The competent authority, agreed with the enquiry officer, imposed punishment of removal from service.
4. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of removal before the District Collector, being appellate authority under the rules.
5. The order of removal was challenged in appeal, by raising 15 grounds, i.e. legal and on facts. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal.
6. The operative part of order passed by the appellate authority reads as under:
"11.) In the appeal Mr.K.Ganesan's Appeal Petition, charges framed against him Executive Officer's findings and Revenue Divisional Officer's Order and relevant documents were carefully considered scrutinized.
12.) The Charges framed against the individuals are proved hence the punishment given by Cheramahadevi Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.03.2001 dismissing from service of the Appellant is justifiable.
13.) Hence Appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and Cheramahadevi Revenue Divisional Officer's Order in proceeding No.A5/1417/2000 dated 27.03.2001, is confirmed.
Sd. District Collector
Tirunelveli"
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of appellate authority, on the ground that the order is totally non speaking order, as it does not deal with grounds raised against the order of punishment, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
8. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in J.K.Rajkumarvs. The Director General of Police and others (W.P.No.48481 of 2006), decided on 19.03.2012.
9. Learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand opposed the writ petition, by contending that the reading of the order of punishment shows, that the punishing authority had carefully gone through the charges as well as findings recorded, by enquiry officer and thereafter, by agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, removed the petitioner from service. The order passed by the appellate authority shows, that it considered all the points raised by petitioner before passing impugned order, an
