Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sukhram Muwel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.13523 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
SUKHRAM MUWEL S/O SHRI P.S. MUWEL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT. SERVICE R/O M.P. RAJYA BEEJ
EVAM FARM VIKAS NIGAM CAMPUS
KUNDESHWAR DIST. TIKAMGARH M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJMANI MISHRA.- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL M.P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. M.P. RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM VIKAS
NIGAM THROUGH SECRETARY
BEEJ BHAWAN 36, MOTHER TERASA
MARG, ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. RAJYA
BEEJ EVM FARM VIKAS NIGAM
BEEJ BHAWAN 36, MOTHER TERASA
MARG, ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
2
4. REGIONAL MANAGER M.P. RAJYA
BEEJ EVM FARM VIKAS NIGAM,
SAGAR RANGE 94, PODDAR
COLONY, SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 /
STATE.
SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
NO.2 TO 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
With the consent of parties, finally heard.
2. The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to the punishment order dated 16.07.2021
(Annexure P-1).
3. It is pointed out that petitioner was served with a show cause
notice dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure P-2). In turn, petitioner filed his
reply dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure P-3) and denied the allegations and
submitted his defence on merits. The disciplinary authority by order
dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) opined that petitioner in his defence
could not produce any solid evidence and therefore, the punishment of
stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect is imposed. By
placing reliance on the judgment of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of
India and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 180, it is submitted that in a case of this
nature, the departmental enquiry should have been conducted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
4. Shri Deepak Sahu and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the other side opposed the prayer on the twin grounds.
Firstly, the petitioner has statutory remedy of departmental appeal.
Secondly, the petitioner defence has been considered while passing the
punishment order dated 16.07.2021. Shri Singh placed reliance on
(2008) 2 SCC 41 (U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Kamal Swaroop Tondon).
5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7. A conjoint reading of show cause notice and the reply shows that
petitioner has denied the allegations and put-forth his defence on
merits. The said defence was not accepted. Instead, the disciplinary
authority opined that petitioner could not produce 'solid evidence' in
his defence. Needless to emphasize that in the departmental enquiry
also, the burden lies on the shoulder of the prosecution to prove the
charges. If that primary burden is discharged by the department in
accordance with law then only the employee is required to show his
innocence. The impugned order does not contain any reason
whatsoever as to why defence taken by petitioner in his reply is not
found trustworthy. 'Reasons' are held to be heart beat of 'conclusions'.
8. The Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and another
Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 emphasized
the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and
judicial function/order. The relevant portion reads as under:-
47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court
holds:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
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).
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".
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The impugned order is liable to be interfered with for yet another
reason. In O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) the Apex Court opined as under :-
"3.While we agree with the first proposition of the
High Court having regard to the rule position which
expressly says that "withholding increments of pay
with or without cumulative effect" is a minor
penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the
second proposition. Even in the case of a minor
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
penalty an opportunity has to be given to the
delinquent employee to have his say or to file his
explanation with respect to the charges against him.
Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are
denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry
should also be called for. This is the minimum
requirement of the principle of natural justice and the
said requirement cannot be dispensed with."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. This minimum requirement 'as expected' by Supreme Court
which is part and parcel of principles of natural justice, is not taken
care of while passing the impugned order. In that event, in the light of
judgment in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Mumbai and others), (1998) 8 SCC 1, the petitioner should not be
relegated to avail the alternative remedy.
11. So far judgment of Kamal Swaroop Tandon (supra) is
concerned, a careful reading of para-34 and 40 of the judgment shows
that the findings given by Supreme Court are based on Rules 93, 102,
103 and 109 of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (General Service
Rules),1998. In the backdrop of those rules, it was held that for
imposition of minor penalty, it is not necessary for the Corporation to
follow detailed and lengthy procedure. In this judgment, the Apex
Court has not considered the previous judgment of O.K. Bhardwaj
(supra). Apart from this, judgment of Kamal Swaroop Tandon
(supra) nowhere says that the disciplinary authority while taking
decision on show cause notice is not required to deal with the defence
taken by delinquent employee in the reply. The said judgment is also
not an authority on the proposition that burden to prove the charge is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
not on the shoulders of prosecution. Similarly, it was not held that
without assigning any reason, minor punishment can be imposed.
Thus, in this case, the said judgment is of no assistance to the
employer.
12. In view of serious procedural impropriety and violation of
principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 16.07.2021 is
set aside. Liberty is reserved to the department to proceed against the
petitioner from the stage petitioner's reply is received by the
department.
13. Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
Sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:39:36 AM
