A single-judge bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of the Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Abha Kumari Vs The state of Bihar held that furnishing clear, cogent, and succinct reasons in support of the impugned order, is an indispensable component of a decision-making process.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and the disciplinary authority had passed an order of punishment inflicting the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and it was further directed that she would not be entitled to any payment for the suspension period except the subsistence allowances already paid to her. Thereafter, the appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. Then, the order was challenged by way of filing a writ petition, and the orders were quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not given any notice disclosing reasons for differing with the findings of the inquiry Officer and also had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with regard to such difference. The present writ petition was filed in order to quash the order passed by Respondent No. 3
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the order passed by respondent no. 3 merely disclosed the facts and neither dealt with the submissions made by the Petitioner nor mentioned any irregularities. It was furthermore submitted that no compelling or concise justification has been offered for punishing the petitioner, which is a crucial step in the decision-making process.
The learned counsel relied upon the judgment titled Janeshwar Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others, Dr. Kamla Singh vs. State of Bihar & Others.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the whole procedure was followed during the disciplinary proceedings and there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the impugned order is not only confusing, but it is also an unjustified order that shows a complete lack of cognitive effort in that it failed to consider the petitioner's defence. In addition, Respondent No. 3 did not provide any clear, convincing, or concise justifications for the decision that the petitioner should be punished.
It was furthermore observed that it is essential for a decision-making process to include the provision of concise, precise, and persuasive justifications for the contested ruling.
The court relied upon the judgment titled ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed the impugned order.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Smt. Abha Kumari vs. the state of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17189 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.Subodh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, AC to SC-18
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
