Ashok Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12193 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                              ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 14049 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY S/O SHRI BAIDYANATH PRASAD
                          DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          PRESENTLY      POSTED   AS    WATCHMAN   AT
                          GOVERNHMENT HIGH SCHOOL VASTUA DISTT. SIDHI
                          VILLAGE JAMODI POST PANWAR TEH. GOPAD BANAS
                          DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. SECRETA
                                RY    TRIBAL   AND    SCHEDULE     CASTE
                                DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT      VALLABH
                                BHAWAN, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMMISSIONER      TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT
                                D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DIVISIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL AND
                                SCHEDULE    CASTE   DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
                                REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE
                                DEPARTMENT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    COLLECTOR SIDHI SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                          RESPONDENTS/STATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD SHARMA
Signing time: 04-Aug-23
2:50:41 PM
                                                                2
                                                                   ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:-

i.) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing impugned order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.4 Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Sidhi, District Sidhi (M.P.).

ii.) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire service record the petitioners to ascertain the validity of the regularization of the service of the petitioner. iii.) That any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the present case is squarely covered by order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the Co-ordintate Bench of this Court in case of Santosh Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and Other in W.P.No.8049/2017.

3. P e r contra, counsel for the State submitted that regularization of the employee was cancelled, but fairly conceded that the said order was set-aside by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.9238/2015 with a direction to the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner.

4. I t is fairly conceded that after a issuing the show cause notice, the impugned order has been passed by merely observing that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory.

5. However, counsel for the respondents could not point out as to how the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Patel (supra) is distinguishable under the facts and circumstances of the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 04-Aug-23 2:50:41 PM

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order in the case of Santosh Kumar Patel (supra).

"This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 15.5.2015 Annexure P/1 whereby regularisation of the petitioner was held to be illegal and contrary to the rules.

2. The admitted facts are that earlier by order dated 16.6.2015 the regularisation order of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner assailed this order in WP No.9238/2015 before this court. This court interfered with the said order and directed the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and permit him to file reply within a stipulated time. In turn, respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.2.2017. The petitioner filed his reply on 8.3.2017. Petitioner was given personal hearing also. 3 . By impugned order, the respondents have reached to a conclusion that reply of the petitioner is not justifiable. No reasons are assigned as to why defence of the petitioner was not found trustworthy.

4 . Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that it does not contain reasons for the conclusion arrived at.

5. Prayer is opposed by Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer who supported the impugned order.

6. In the opinion of this court, the argument of Shri Tripathi has substantial force. The respondents have not assigned a single reason as to why the petitioner's reply was not found justifiable. They merely recorded a conclusion that petitioner's reply cannot be treated as justifiable. The reasons are heartbeat of conclusions. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Khan and other, 2010 (9) SCC 496 emphasised the need of assigning reasons in following words:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 04-Aug-23 2:50:41 PM

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. Signature Not Verified Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 04-Aug-23 2:50:41 PM

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). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the b r o a d 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".

6. If impugned order is tested on the anvil of the principles laid down in Kranti Associates(Supra), the impugned order become vulnerable. Accordingly, for not assigning any reason about the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the order dated 15.5.2017 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

7. Petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above

8. The case in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, therefore, this petition is also disposed of in the terms and conditions as well as liberty granted Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 04-Aug-23 2:50:41 PM

by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Patel (supra).

9. Petition is finally disposed of

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Vin**

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 04-Aug-23 2:50:41 PM