Anand Mundi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8362 MP

                                                                               1                              WP-25518-2021
                                                      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                               WP No. 25518 of 2021
                                                         (ANAND MUNDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                                            Indore, Dated : 07-12-2021
                                                  Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                                  Shri A. Bajaj, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.

With the consent, finally heard.

2 . This petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution assails the order of punishment dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure P/1) and

appellate order dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure P/15).

3. In nutshell, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to show cause notice dated 22.5.2018 (Annexure P/4), petitioner filed his detailed reply running in 3 pages and two documents were annexed with the said reply in defence of the petitioner. The punishment order dated 12.11.2018 is passed wherein it is mentioned that reply so filed by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and convincing. However, no reasons are assigned as to why such conclusions were drawn. The appellate authority passed similar non-speaking order which is against the principles of

natural justice and Rule 16 of M.P. C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1966.

4. Shri A. Bajaj, learned Panel Lawyer for State has opposed the prayer and submits that 'due process' has been followed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Thus, it is trite that punishment order in a disciplinary proceeding entail civil consequences. Thus, same should be passed by following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply assigning reasons because of which his conduct should not fall within the ambit of 'misconduct'.

7. The respondents in the punishment order dated 12.11.2018 jumped to a conclusion that the reply is not satisfactory. No reasons have been assigned as to why reply was not treated to be satisfactory. Reasons are held Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2021.12.07 18:32:52 IST 2 WP-25518-2021 to be heartbeat of conclusions.

8. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Massod Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial function in following

words :-

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds :-

(a) In India the judicial trends 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

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the SAN SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2021.12.07 18:32:52 IST 3 WP-25518-2021 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 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-mkaing 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 Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2021.12.07 18:32:52 IST 4 WP-25518-2021 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". (emphasis supplied).

9. The impugned order of punishment and appellate order are passed without assigning reasons as to why the defence put forth by the petitioner is not trustworthy. Thus, decision making process is polluted and runs contrary to principles of natural justice and Rule 16 of M.P. C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1966, which mandates that reasons must be assigned.

10. Consequently, both the orders dated 12.11.2018 and 26.12.2019 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner after the stage petitioner's reply is received.

11. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE

SS/-

Signature Not Verified
              VerifiedDigitally
                       Digitally signed by
  SAN                  SHAILESH
                       MAHADEV
                       SUKHDEVE
                       Date: 2021.12.07
                       18:32:52 IST