Bombay High Court
Subhash Budhaji Wagh vs The New Indian Assurance Co Ltd ... on 30 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 109 WP.11231.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
109 WRIT PETITION NO.11231 OF 2019
SUBHASH BUDHAJI WAGH
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Respondents.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 30th August, 2021.
PER COURT:
. We have heard Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for petitioner
and Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent.
2 The petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on or about 31st December, 2018. The contention of
the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted after retirement. The
enquiry was conducted with mala-fide intention and with an ulterior
motive. According to the learned advocate, the Enquiry Officer
appointed was not competent as per the Vigilance Manual. The
enquiry was not conducted impartially. The petitioner was dismissed
from service after more than four years of his retirement. The appeal
filed by the petitioner was decided in mechanical manner without
2 109 WP.11231.2019.odt
assigning proper reasons. The learned counsel submits that the
appellate authority has to give reasons while dismissing the appeal of
the petitioner. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani
Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and
others, reported in, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240. The learned
counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Anil Amrut Atre Vs. District and Sessions Judge &
another, reported in, 2003 (2) Bom.C.R. 246.
3 Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondents
submits that under the Service Rules, the provision exist that the
enquiry can be conducted even after the retirement of the employee.
As per the CVC Vigilance Manual, the enquiry was conducted by he
competent person. The Enquiry Officer was senior to the petitioner.
The learned counsel submits that every opportunity was given to the
petitioner during the course of enquiry. After the appellate authority's
order dismissing the appeal, the memorial was preferred before the
Chief Managing Director. The Chief Managing Director has also
dismissed the same. All the authorities are concurrent. The reasons
are given, though may not elaborate. The grounds of appeal have
been dealt with.
3 109 WP.11231.2019.odt
4 Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel relies upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce
and another Vs. R.K. Uppal, reported in, (2011) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 695.
5 Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel did not seriously dispute that
even after the retirement, the enquiry can be conducted as per the
Service Rules governing the parties.
6 As far as the objection that the Enquiry Officer appointed
was not competent to conduct the enquiry, we do not find the same to
be proper. The Enquiry Officer was competent to conduct the enquiry,
he was senior to the petitioner.
7 The emphasis was laid more on the ground that the
reasons are not given by the appellate authority.
8 Nowadays, the distinction between the administrative
order and quasi judicial order has almost obliterated. The reasons now
are considered to be the third limb of the principles of natural justice.
The reasons depict the application of the mind of the authority passing
the order. The reasons have the link between he final conclusion and
the evidence on record.
4 109 WP.11231.2019.odt
9 An order bereft of reasons cannot be sustained.
10 We can understand that the appellate authority hearing
the appeal is not a judicial nor quasi judicial officer. The Court cannot
expect an elaborate and detail reasoning from such an administrative
authority. However, reasons in brief explaining that the grounds raised
in the appeal are dealt with have to be demonstrated in the order
dismissing the appeal. The grounds are raised in the memo of appeal.
The appellate authority has culled out the grounds raised by the
petitioner in the appeal, however, has not dealt with it while arriving at
conclusion. The said grounds were required to be dealt with by brief
reasons though not elaborate one.
11 As the appellate order does not demonstrate the grounds
raised in the appeal being considered, we set aside the appellate
order.
12 The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for
reconsideration of the appeal filed before it.
13 The appellate authority may examine the grounds raised
by the petitioner in the appeal and may deal with the same afresh.
5 109 WP.11231.2019.odt
14 The appeal may be decided afresh in accordance with the
procedure, preferably within three months.
15 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
[ R. N. LADDHA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
nga
