Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Hemlata Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WP-7169-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-7169-2017
(SMT. HEMLATA RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
With the consent finally heard.
This petition assails the order of termination dated 28/01/2017.
Briefly stated, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated
28/11/2016 (Annexure P/4). She filed a detailed reply on 17/12/2016
(Annexure P/7). The petitioner was again served with a similar show cause
notice containing same allegations on 6/01/2017 (Annexure P/8). The
petitioner filed a short reply by contending that her previous reply to the
similar show cause notice can be treated to be her reply. Indisputably
respondents received this reply which is evident from bare perusal of order
dated 28/01/2017 (Annexure P/1).
Shri V.D.S. Chouhan assailed the impugned order by contending that
there is no application of mind on the reply of the petitioner. No reasons are
assigned as to why reply filed by petitioner is not trustworthy. He placed
reliance on the decision of Division Bench order of this Court in W.A. No.
1166/2017 (Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P.) and another judgment
passed in W.A. No. 528/2015 (Paramjeet Singh & another Vs. The State of
M.P. & others).
Prayer is opposed by Shri Sanjeev Singh.
There is no iota of doubt that petitioner was served with two similar
show cause notices aforesaid. Petitioner filed a reply to the previous notice
and took a categorical stand while replying the second notice that her
previous reply will serve the purpose. There is no application of mind by the
competent authority on the reply filed by the petitioner. Thus, principles of
natural justice were grossly violated. Since no reasons are assigned as to why
Signature Not Verified
SAN
reply of petitioner did not suit the competent authority, the impugned order
Date: 2021.08.24 10:47:41 IST
2 WP-7169-2017
became vulnerable. The necessity to assign reason is emphasized by the
Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 in administrative, quasi judicial and
judicial orders. The relevant portion reads as under:
"51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 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).
3 WP-7169-2017
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".
The impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
Resultantly, the order dated 28/01/2017 is set aside. Liberty is
reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance
with law.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
navin
