G Anil Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6650 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G Anil Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 August, 2024

 APHC010322302024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                                [3331]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                      PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                          WRIT PETITION NO: 16248/2024

Between:

G Anil Kumar                                                          ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                          ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. G V SHIVAJI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL)

     2. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

                                     :: ORDER :

:

Impugning the Order No.NCC (AP)/918/1/759/e/B-1 dated 09.07.2024, issued by respondent No.2, imposing the major penalty, reduction to lower post i.e. from Superintendent to Senior Assistant, the above writ petition is filed.

2. Petitioner's case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant on 29.01.1994 in National Cadet Crops (NCC) and he is presently holding the post of Superintendent. While so, based on the complaints made by Ch. Srinivasa Kumar, outsource Lascar and T. Konda Babu, retired Chowkidar, a Court of Inquiry was constituted with three members by an incompetent authority i.e. the Group Commander, who is neither an appointing authority nor a disciplinary authority. The petitioner is governed by A.P. Ministerial Service Rules and A.P. Civil Service Conduct & Appeal Rules (for short 'the Rules') and as per the said Rules, a preliminary inquiry is mandatory, which has to be conducted by the disciplinary authority or any authority higher in cadre to the petitioner. The Court of Inquiry or the Court Martial is only permitted in commissioned services of the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force. The Group Commander has no authority to constitute the Court of Inquiry and he was not authorized either by the disciplinary authority or appointing authority. After the report by the Court of Inquiry, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3 stating that the Group Commander has no jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred as Superintendent at 3(A) Girls Bn NCC, Kakinada.

b) Later the petitioner was issued with a charge memo, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation. Show cause notice dated 09.02.2021, under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the CCA Rules, 1991') was issued to the petitioner, treating the Court of Inquiry report as a regular inquiry report and proposing punishment under Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, 1991 without furnishing a copy of the report. However, petitioner submitted reply, dated 09.02.2021 to the said show cause notice.

c) After considering the petitioner's explanation dated 09.02.2021, respondent No.3 appointed a regular Court of Inquiry vide order dated 16.03.2021 on the ground that the Court of Inquiry report is contrary to the Rules. After completion of the 2nd Court of Inquiry, a report was submitted to respondent No.3, based on which another show cause notice dated 07.05.2021 was issued calling for the petitioner's explanation within ten days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, not being satisfied with the same, respondent No.3 issued proceedings, dated 07.07.2021 imposing a major penalty as stipulated in Rule 9 (vii)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1991. Impugning the same petitioner filed W.P.No.15491 of 2021 and learned Single Judge, by order dated 04.04.2023 set aside the said proceedings and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 to conduct a fresh inquiry as per the Rules.

d) In pursuance of the remand, the authorities issued a final show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted objections. However, without considering the same, the authority passed the order impugned in this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkat Sunil, learned counsel representing Sri Arun Souri, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier petitioner filed W.P.No.15491 of 2021 challenging the order of punishment and the said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the proceedings, impugned therein and the matter was remanded to respondent No.3 to conduct inquiry afresh in accordance with Rules 20 and 21 of the CCA Rules. He would submit that after the matter was remanded, the order impugned was passed without assigning reasons.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order impugned was passed based on the material available on record and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings impugned are legally sustainable.?

7. There is no dispute regarding factual aspects and hence no further discussion is made. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is bereft of reasons and hence it is liable to be set aside. It is apt to extract para No.8 of the order impugned:

"8. In view of the above, considering the complete details of the case together with the findings of the Inquiry report, replies and statement of the individual and also in pursuance of the powers delegated by the Govt vide G.O.Ms.No.3400 Edn, Edn Dept dt. 22 Nov 1963, the major penalty as stipulated in the rule 9 (vii) (B) of A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules 1991 i.e., Reduction to a lower post i.e., Senior Office Assistant is hereby awarded once again as fresh to Sri G Anil Kumar in 18(A) Bn NCC, Kakinada with immediate effect and posted to 3(A) Girls Bn NCC, Kakinada and directed to report CO, 3(A) Girls Bn NCC, Kakinada and assume duties of Senior Office Assistant. After reporting the individual in the posted unit, the pay fixation of individual should be done as per the existing of Govt rules in vogue."

8. It is well established principle of law that reasons are heart and soul of any order. The order passed by respondent No.2 does not contain reasons and in the absence of any reasons, the impugned order passed by the authority becomes vulnerable.

9. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others1, while considering the ambit of reasons, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized as follows:

"(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.

2010 (9) SCC 496

(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 lifeblood 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 instrumentalism.

(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 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)

(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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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".

10. Indeed, in the earlier round of litigation, the learned single judge on careful consideration by order dated 04.04.2023, remanded the matter to the authority to pass a reasoned order after conducting, a fresh inquiry. A perusal of the order impugned, extracted supra in the considered opinion of this court is bereft of reasons. The authority, while imposing major punishment, should discuss the misconduct of the delinquent with the material on record. However, no such attempt was made as seen from the order. Apart from that, as seen from the proceedings, nothing is forthcoming, regarding conducting of fresh inquiry as per the directions in the earlier writ petition.

11. Given the discussion supra, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed at the admission stage. The Order No.NCC (AP)/918/1/759/e/B-1 dated 09.07.2024, issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to pass a reasoned order keeping in view the order passed in the earlier writ petition W.P.No.15491 of 2021. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 02.08.2024 IKN

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 16248/2024

Date : 02.08.2024 IKN