Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manbahor Patel vs Managing Director on 16 September, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                                                    1
            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                   Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017
         (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

Jabalpur, Dated : 16.09.2021

      Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shr Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

With the consent matter is heard finally.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

18.06.2016 passed by the respondent No.3, by which the services of

the petitioner were terminated. Appeal filed against the same has

been dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2016 by a non-speaking order

and a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-

cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner on the

ground that he has misbehaved with the Accountant and he has not

sent the C.R.A. within time.

It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed on the

post of Office Assistant Grade-III in Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti,

Sidhi and after abolition of the said society, the services of the

petitioner were merged with M.P. State Electricity Board vide order

dated 13.08.2010 and thereafter with M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut

Vitran Company vide order dated 27.11.2012. The petitioner was

working at Distribution Centre Amiliya under the control of

respondent No.4. A show cause notice dated 31.07.2015 was issued

to the petitioner alleging that he has not deposited C.R.A. within time

as well as he has misbehaved with the Accountant. The reply to the

aforesaid show cause notice was submitted on 28.12.2015 denying

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017 (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

all the charges which were levelled against the petitioner. The

Authorities without considering the reply filed by the petitioner has

passed the impugned order on 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby

penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative

effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by filing an

appeal before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority has

affirmed the order dated 26.02.2016 by impugned order dated

18.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) which is a non-speaking order. The order

does not reflect any consideration of the grounds which are raised in

the appeal. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private

Limited and Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported

in (2010) 9 SCC 496 and has argued that the reasons are heart beat

of the orders as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid

case and order dated 18.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) does not reflect that

there was any consideration or application of mind by the Appellate

Authority. In such circumstances, the petitioner is praying for

quashment of the order.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by

filing its return has denied all the averments of the writ petition and

has supported the impugned orders contending therein that a minor

penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner of stoppage of one

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017 (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

annual increment with non-cumulative effect. The opportunity of

hearing was granted to the petitioner, as show cause notice dated

31.07.2015 was issued to him and the same was duly responded by

him and after considering the same, order dated 26.02.2016 was

passed by the Authorities. Specific allegations were levelled against

the petitioner in the show cause notice that he has misbehaved with

the Authorities and has also not sent the C.R.A. in time. No

justifiable reason could be pointed out by the petitioner in the reply,

therefore, the Authority is taking lenient view in the matter and

imposed the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-

cumulative effect. It is further contended that the reply to the show

cause notice is silent upon the fact that the petitioner has misbehaved

with the Authorities as the show cause notice clearly reflects the

aforesaid allegations. In such circumstances, no interference is called

for. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited

Vs. Food Corporation of India, (Civil Appeal No.3687/2020)

decided on 16.11.2020 wherein it is held that the show cause notice

should contain the alleged proposed punishment against the

petitioner. In the present case also the show cause notice is very clear

on the aforesaid aspect,, as specific allegations levelled against the

petitioner were reflected from the show cause notice and also the

proposed penalty. In such circumstances, the orders passed by the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017 (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

Authorities are well reasoned orders and does not call for any

interference in the petition. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Apart from the admitted fact in the writ petition that during the

service a show cause notice dated 31.07.2015 was issued to the

petitioner spelling out the allegations against him and also the

proposed penalty, reply to the show cause notice was duly submitted

by the petitioner and the Authority after consideration of the reply

has passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 wherein the penalty

of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect was

imposed upon the petitioner.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Authority has

affirmed the order by its order dated 18.06.2016. From the perusal of

the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is seen that there is

non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority and only on the

assertion, the Appellate Authority has gone through the records and

has found that no illegality has been committed by the Executive

Engineer in passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2016. The

Appellate Authority has held as under :-

^^vkSj tSlk fd rRlaca/k esa Jh eucgksj iVsy] dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&nks }kjk izLrqr [email protected] esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij lexz :i ls v/;;u mijkUr dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark ¼[email protected]/kk½ lh/kh }kjk vkns'k dz-dk-ik-;[email protected]&[email protected]@vk- @1208&09 fnukWd 26-02-16 ls Jh eucgksj iVsy] dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&nks dh vkxkeh ,d okf"kZd osru o`f) vlpa;h izHkko ls can djus

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017 (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA

vkSj tSlk fd mDr ikfjr n.Mkns'k ds fo:) Jh eucgksj iVsy] dk;kZy; lgk;d Js.kh&nks }kjk bl dk;kZy; dks vihy izLrqr dh xbZ ftlds laca/k esa dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark ¼[email protected]/kk½ lh/kh ds i= Øekad dk-ik-;[email protected]&[email protected]@383 fnukWd 13-06-16 ls izkIr vfHker ,oa izdj.k ls lacaf/kr lexz ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, U;kf;d n`f"V ls lw{e ijh{k.k fd;k x;k rFkk ijh{k.kksijkUr v/kksgLrkj{kjdrkZ bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gS fd deZpkjh }kjk izLrqr vihy fnukad 19-05-

16 dks Lohdkj ;ksX; u ikrs gq;s dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark ¼[email protected]/kk½ lh/kh }kjk vkns'k Øekad 1208&09 fnukad 26-02-16 ls fn;s x;s n.M dks ;Fkkor j[kk tkuk U;k;laxr gksxkA**

The order is totally silent on the reasonings for consideration

of grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal or reply to the show

cause notice.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates

(supra) has held as under :-

"47. 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017 (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

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".

From the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is

apparently clear that the reasonings are required to be assigned after

application of mind by the Authorities in passing the orders. The

reasons are the heart beat of the orders passed by the Authorities. The

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1121 of 2017 (Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director and others)

order dated 18.06.2016 is totally a non-speaking order without

application of mind and without consideration of the grounds raised

by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the appellate order dated

18.06.2016 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed.

The matter is relegated back to the Appellate Authority for

passing a fresh order following the principles of law laid down in the