Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Dipak Misra, J.
Mohammad Idris
Vs.
Registrar General, M.P. High Court, Jabalpur and another
W.P. No. 3350 of 1999
Decided On: 24.01.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Petitioner in person
For Respondents/Defendant: Satendra Patel
The absence of reasons in a quasi-judicial order renders it unsustainable, and ascribing of reasons is imperative in such proceedings.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Departmental Enquiry - M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 27(2) - The court found that the Appellate Authority's order lacked reasoning, which is imperative in quasi-judicial proceedings. The absence of reasons rendered the order unsustainable and led to its quashing. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration, including the issue of the proportionality of punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, was suspended and proceeded against in a departmental enquiry. Allegations of procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice were raised. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellate Authority's order lacked reasoning, rendering it unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, lack of reasoning in the Appellate Authority's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of reasons in a quasi-judicial order renders it unsustainable. Ascribing of reasons is imperative in such proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1977 in the District Judiciary. In the year 1995, he was suspended and proceeded against in a departmental enquiry. The District and Sessions Judge, Damoh appointed a Judicial Magistrate as an Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is averred in the petition, the Enquiry Officer without following the due procedure as contemplated under the M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short the Rules) conducted the enquiry. As alleged, he was deprived of getting necessary documents. Such witnesses who were inimically disposed towards the petitioner were produced and the principle of natural justice was not followed. It is asserted that the respondent No. 2 was totally annoyed with the petitioner as the wife of the petitioner made complaints against the Disciplinary Authority to the High Court. The enquiry took one and half years and eventually it was concluded. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 3180 of 1998 which was withdrawn. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 3-8-1998 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority vide Annexure.P12 dated 2-7-1999 rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
2. According to the writ petitioner, the order passed vide Annexure.P12 is a non-speaking order and that itself warrants its lanceting. It is further urged that the order of compulsory retirement as contained in Annexure.P11 suffers from immense irregularities warranting its quashment. It is the stand in the writ petition that the principles of natural justice were not followed during the enquiry and, therefore, the order of punishment has to pave the path of vitiation.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents 1 and 2 contending inter-alia that the enquiry was conducted as per rules and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It has been pleaded that except Charge Nos. 2 and 8, all other charges were proved either fully or in part. It is contended that the enquiry report is based on material evidence on record and adequate reasons have been given by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the conclusion. The Disciplinary Authority, upon perusal of the testimony of the witnesses and the documents brought on record and upon consideration of the entire record, concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to show cause for removal but eventually, he was compulsorily retired. The other allegations made in the petition have been controverted.
4. I have heard the petitioner Mohammad Idris and Mr. Satyendra Patel, Learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. The petitioner has raised four contentions, namely, the Enquiry Officer has not followed the appropriate procedure and, therefore, the report is vitiated and as a logical corollary the concurrence by the Disciplinary Authority has also become untenable; that the charges though have been treated to have been proven, in actual facts, there is no evidence and hence the order of punishment is per se illegal; that the appellate authority has passed an order in a mechanical manner without ascribing any reason and that makes the order of the Appellate Authority absolutely susceptible; and that none of the authorities have taken care of the nature of the charges and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, as a consequence of which the doctrine of proportionality has been given a go-bye.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and canvassed that there had been no illegality in conducting of the enquiry and the concurrence of the Disciplinary Authority with the same cannot be found fault with. It is urged by him that the principles of proportionality has been kept in v
