Imposition of punishment without considering the petitioner's reply violated principles of natural justice and M.P.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966, as established in the judgments in O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Others (2001) 9 SCC 180 and M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

Heard through Video Conferencing

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. Facts are taken from WP. No. 17190/2014.

3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) wherein certain allegations of impropriety/misconduct were made against him. The petitioner filed reply dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) and denied the charges in toto. He also submitted his explanation in the said reply. The respondents, in turn, passed the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 and inflicted a punishment of recovery on the petitioner. The petitioner directly assailed this order in this petition.

4. Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the allegations made against him are factual in nature and the same are denied by him, in view of principles of natural justice ingrained in Rule 16 of M.P.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Others (2001) 9 SCC 180, the respondents were required to consider the reply and conduct an enquiry, if they were not satisfied with the reply. In the manner, they imposed a punishment of recovery without considering the reply, the impugned order needs to be axed.

5. Prayer is opposed by Shri Parashar on the basis of return filed. However, he did not dispute that no enquiry was conducted in the matters as mandated in Rule 16 of CCA Rules.

6. In the present matters, the punishment of recovery is inflicted on the petitioners. The said act has an adverse impact and entails a civil consequences. Thus, the minimum requirement as per principles of natural justice was to consider the reply of the petitioner before taking decision to impose punishment. A microscopic reading of impugned order dated 28.10.2014 shows that there is no iota of application of mind on the reply filed by the petitioner. The so-called enquiry mentioned in the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 was an enquiry conducted by the department behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, the said enquiry will not serve any useful purpose as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules and principles of natural justice. No reasons are assigned in the impugned order as to why the defence taken by the petitioner was not found trustworthy.

7. The Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

8. In the said judgment, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is v