The Patna High Court has quashed the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the Child Development Project Officer on the grounds that the order was found to be cryptic, unreasoned and passed after non-application of mind. Further, the defence of the Petitioner was not taken into consideration.
It was opined that furnishing of clear, cogent and succinct reasons in support of the impugned order, is an indispensable component of a decision making process.
Brief Facts:
The departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and after memo of charge, reply was submitted. The Inquiry Officer had exonerated the Petitioner, however, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment with a direction that she would not be entitled to any payment for the suspension period except the subsistence allowances already paid to her.
Therefore, a writ petition was preferred and the order was quashed.
A second show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, to which the Petitioner replied that at that moment, she was posted as Child Development Project Officer and all necessary precautions were taken by her to not engage in any irregularity at the centre.
Hence, the present writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that there was no evidence and hence, punishment could not have been inflicted upon the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that procedure in case of enquiry has been duly followed, hence, the Court cannot sit in appeal and reappreciate the evidence.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the present case is a case of no evidence.
The order was found to be cryptic, unreasoned and passed after non-application of mind. Further, the defence of the Petitioner was not taken into consideration.
It was opined that furnishing of clear, cogent and succinct reasons in support of the impugned order, is an indispensable component of a decision making process.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the order was quashed and accordingly writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Smt. Abha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17189 of 2015
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Subodh Sinha
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Aditya Nath Jha
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
