Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamta Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 21419 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KAMTA VERMA S/O SHRI RAMVISHAL VERMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SALESMAN GOVERNMENT FAIR PRICE SHOP,
SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT BARETI
KALA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GOPAL SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER COOPERATIVE AND
R EGI S TR ATI ON COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COOPERATIVE
AND REGISTRATION COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ADMINISTRATOR / MANAGER COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT
RIMARI, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHWETA YADAV - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Challenge is being made to an order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, District Rewa
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10/14/2022
2:06:20 PM
whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
It is argued that a show cause notice was issued on 05.09.2022 and the
impugned order of termination has been passed on 07.09.2022 without
following the principles of natural justice and the guidelines which have been
framed by the State Government regarding imposition of punishment to the
petitioner. He has drawn attention of this Court to Clause 26 of the policy which
prescribes imposition of penalty and the competent authority. It is categorically
mentioned in the policy that a show cause is to be issued, a reply is to be
considered and if required an inquiry is to be conducted in the matter prior to
imposition of major penalty. It is argued that no such procedure has been
followed by the authority. Apart from this, the impugned order has been issued
by an incompetent authority as the authority competent to terminate services of
the petitioner is the Manager of the Societies. Placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates
Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496,
it is submitted that certain guidelines have been framed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court with respect to imposition of major penalty, which have not been
followed by the authorities.
Counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned order
stating that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he did not file
any reply to the show cause notice, therefore, under such compelling
circumstances, the authorities have passed the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the record reflects that a show cause notice was issued on
05.09.2022 to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed on
07.09.2022 within a short period of two days, which does not amount to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10/14/2022
2:06:20 PM
granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There are certain
allegations levelled against him in the order of removal. In such circumstances,
as the removal from service is a major penalty, the procedure prescribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
has not been followed by the authorities.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
"œ47. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10/14/2022
2:06:20 PM
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".
In the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to
guidelines framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10/14/2022
2:06:20 PM
Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the impugned order passed by the authorities is
unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Matter is relegated
back to the authorities to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed off.
C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10/14/2022
2:06:20 PM
