Lalit Kumar Jain vs United India Insurance Company ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22136 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54874
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5889 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Jain
 
Respondent :- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Thru. Its Chairman And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Agarwal,Saksham Agarwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate who files his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 which is taken on record.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Arif Chambers- 1st, 2nd & 3rd floor Kapoorthala Bagh Complex Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of withdrawal of 50 % of monthly basic pension for a period of five years in terms of the relevant rules.

3. The legal argument as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after submission of the inquiry report dated 27.09.2022, the petitioner was required to submit his reply which, the petitioner has submitted vide his representation dated 30.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 19 to the writ petition. The disciplinary authority while passing the order impugned dated 27.03.2023 has not even considered the grounds which were taken by the petitioner in his reply dated 30.12.2022 rather has passed a cursory order whereby it has been contended that he has gone through the memorandum of charge, the inquiry report along with the representation of the petitioner which have been found to be devoid of merit and the disciplinary authority has accepted the finding of the inquiry authority.

4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors reported in (2005) 12 SCC 256 as well as Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Apex Court has categorically held that a punishment prescribed cannot be passed unless representation made pursuant to the Show Cause Notice has been considered. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra (supra) is reproduced below:-

"5. Without going into other issues raised, we are of the view that the impugned order of the respondent authority imposing punishment on the appellant cannot be sustained. Even if we assume that Rule 55-A which pertains to minor punishment was applicable and not Rule 55 which relates to major punishments, nevertheless Rule 55-A requires that the punishment prescribed therein cannot be passed unless the representation made pursuant to Show cause notice has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show cause notice were, in fact, considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside."

5. Likewise, the relevant observations of the Apex court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) are reproduced below:-

"40. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out below.

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 virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

41. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order. "

6. Perusal of the judgments passed in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra (supra) as well as Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) would indicate that the Apex Court has categorically held that when a representation/reply has been submitted against the inquiry report then the disciplinary authority is required to consider the grounds which have been taken by the delinquent employee in his reply prior to passing of the order.

7. When the facts of the instant case are seen in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments it clearly emerges that though the disciplinary authority has referred to the representation dated 30.12.2022 which has been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report yet the same has been found to be devoid of merit without indicating the reasons thereof.

8. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion more particularly when no reasons have been accorded by the disciplinary authority while finding the representation submitted by the petitioner devoid of merit, the order impugned dated 27.03.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside.

9. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after considering the representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2022.

10. Let an order in this regard be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

Pachhere/-