Dhirendra Pratap Singh vs Union Of India Ministry Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2577 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                           ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 1234 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DHIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI JAI SINGH, AGED
                           ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE A-504, STAR
                           AVENUE, NEAR EXTOL COLLEGE, ROHIT NAGAR,
                           NUZUR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI D.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
                                 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 HIGHER EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.
                                 RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                           2.    DEPUTY SECRETARY (IIITS), MINISTRY OF
                                 E D U C A T I O N DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
                                 ED UCATION SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI
                                 (DELHI)

                           3.    REGISTRAR ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE INDIAN
                                 INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
                                 MANAGEMENT (AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF
                                 GOVT. OF INDIA) MORENA LINK ROAD GWALIOR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DIRECTOR/ INTERIM DIRECTOR ATAL BIHARI
                                 VAJPAYEE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
                                 TECHNOLOGY     AND    MANAGEMENT      (AN
                                 AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF GOVT. OF INDIA)
                                 MORENA LINK ROAD GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI K.N. GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. AYUSHI POPHLI -
                           ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 AND SHRI PRAVEEN
                           NEWASKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 13-02-2023
07:21:29 PM
                                                                2
                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.12.2022 whereby the representation of the petitioner with regard to reviewing the suspension period as well as the payment of subsistence allowance was rejected.

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that bare reading of the order dated 16.12.2022, it would be evident that its an unreasoned/non-speaking

order and without taking note of the contents of the representation filed by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, it is against the principle of natural justice. On the basis of aforesaid, he prayed for setting aside the order impugned and remanding the matter back to the Competent Authority to decide afresh with regard to reviewing the suspension period as well as payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a time bound frame. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles with regard to necessity of passing the reasoned/speaking order, which reads as under:-

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even i n 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 13-02-2023 07:21:29 PM

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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 13-02-2023 07:21:29 PM

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".

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Shri N.K. Gupta alongwith Ms. Ayushi Pophli, counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 as well as Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy. SGI, counsel for respondent No.1 while opposing the order impugned submits that in each and every matter the reasons are not necessary and required to be assigned and thus, the order impugned suffers from no perversity and should not be interfered with.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is evident that the order dated 16.12.2022 is a non speaking order as it does not assign any reason in support of its conclusion. It is a settled principle of law that reasons in support of decision must be cogent, clear and succinct since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making and is virtually a part of 'Due Process', therefore, in light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (Supra), the order dated 16.12.2022 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Competent Authority to decide afresh with regard to review of the suspension period as well as payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Let the said exercise be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed off.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 13-02-2023 07:21:29 PM

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 13-02-2023 07:21:29 PM