Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 842
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Tmt. M. Kalyani - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. - Respondents
W.P(MD)No.1692 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1450 and 1451 of 2016
Decided On : 27-01-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. H. Mohammed Imran
For the Respondents:Mr. R. Anandharaj Government Advocate
Quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must provide reasons for their conclusions, as mandated by the relevant statutory rules and established legal principles.
Headnote:
Reasons for Rejection - Appeal against Dismissal - The court held that the appellate authority did not provide any reasons for rejecting the appeal, which was in violation of rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The court referred to the decision in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, where it was held that both quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must record reasons for their conclusions. The court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order providing reasons for disposing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband was dismissed from service by the Office of the Tahsildar, Sivakasi, and the petitioner filed appeals and a review challenging the dismissal order and subsequent appellate decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority did not provide any reasons for rejecting the appeal, which was a violation of rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The court referred to the decision in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and held that both quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must record reasons for their conclusions. The court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order providing reasons for disposing the appeal.
Issues: Violation of rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, failure to provide reasons for rejecting the appeal, and the right of appeal as a valuable remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority must provide reasons for rejecting an appeal, as mandated by rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Both quasi-judicial and administrative authorities are required to record reasons for their conclusions, as established in the decision in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.
Final Decision: The court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order providing reasons for disposing the appeal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed. Consequently, related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
The husband of the petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in the office of the Tahsildar, Sivakasi. He was dismissed from service by order dated 30.04.2008 on certain allegations, after framing charges under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and after holding enquiry thereto. The petitioner filed appeal to the third respondent, who is the appellate authority.
2. The appeal was rejected by the third respondent by an order dated 27.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review before the second respondent. The same was also dismissed by the second respondent by an order dated 08.12.2014.
3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal, the order passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the reviewing authority.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the right of appeal is a valuable remedy and the appellate authority has not passed a reasoned order in terms of rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. He has taken me through the order dated 27.09.2012 of the third respondent.
5. Heard both sides.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority did not give any reason for rejecting the appeal except stating that the appellant died. It is useful to extract paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated 27.09.2012.
“XX XX XX”
7. The earlier portions are relating to the narration of the charges and the departmental proceedings leading to the dismissal order and the filing of the appeal.
8. In my view, the appellate authority did not give any reasons for rejecting the appeal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rule 23 enjoins on the appellate authority to give reasons. Furthermore, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, has held that both the quasi-judicial and the administrative authorities shall record reasons for its conclusions.
9. Here, the statutory rule enjoins on the third respondent to give reasons. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to pass fresh order giving reasons for disposing the appeal. The third respondent is directed to dispose the appeal by passing a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)Nos.1450 and 1451 of 2016 are closed.
