Point of Law: Speaking order or reasoned order is considered the third pillar of natural justice. Speaking orders are essential for judicial review. Circumstances of the case is a piece of evidence that indicates the probability or improbability of an event (such as crime).

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner – applicant and learned counsel for the Union of India/Railway Department.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short, “Tribunal”), in Original Application No.330/1393 of 2011, (Satya Narayan Dubey versus Union of India and others).

3. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated pursuant to Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, (for short “Rules, 1968”), on being convicted by the learned trial Court under Sections 409 & 477-A IPC and 13(2) & 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo 7 years, 2 years and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment besides imposition of fine.

4. Petitioner has since been bailed out by the Appellate Court. The learned Tribunal was of the view that none of the orders passed either by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority or the revisional authority qualify as reasoned and speaking order, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner being convicted by the trial Court and the penalty imposed thereof upon him is sustainable.

5. Relevant portion of paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order is extracted:-

“5. No doubt we are of the firm view that none of the three orders i.e. the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisionary authority would qualify as reasoned and speaking orders, we have also to take cognizance of the fact that the applicant has been convicted by the competent Criminal Court, and even through the orders suffer from legal infirmity, the root cause of the penalty of removal from service sustains. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has preferred an appeal against his conviction, which is still pending.

6. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case it would not be appropriate to award any relief to the applicant even though he may have been removed from service by way of cryptic and non speaking order. Therefore, since no relief is possible at this juncture, this OA stands disposed. The applicant would be at liberty to revive the same in case he manages an adequate and appropriate relief in his criminal appeal.”

6. Petitioner after being released on bail, appeared before the authority and submitted a copy of the order of the trial Court, pursuant thereof, a show cause notice dated 01.11.2007, came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to file objection/representation to the proposed penalty of removal from service. Pursuant thereof, petitioner appeared and filed his objection dated 08.11.2007, wherein, a cryptic reply was given that he is not satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the CBI Court. Further, it is stated that he has filed an appeal which has been admitted, consequently, prayed that his case for reinstatement be considered sympathetically.

7. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.12.2007, rejected the representation/explanation furnished by the petitioner after carefully considering the explanation and was of the opinion that the charge in the criminal trial against the delinquent employee was duly proved. Accordingly, punishment of removal came to be imposed. The petitioner filed an appeal followed by revision, the same came to be dismissed.

8. In this backdrop, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal returned a finding that the impugned orders imposing punishment upon the petitioner do not qualify as reasoned and speaking order, therefore, the matter should have been remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in terms of the Rule 14 (i) of the Rules, 1968, which mandates that disciplinary authority may consider the circumstance of the case and make such order thereon.

9. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether disciplinary authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order under Rule 14(i)