Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Archana Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12388
1 WP-30755-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 30755 of 2024
SMT. ARCHANA UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prajas Bhatti - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Jitendra Arya - Advocate for respondent No.6.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated 25/09/2024 passed by respondent No.3.
It is argued that earlier W.P. No. 24683/2024 (Sushma Thakur Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others) was filed, wherein petitioner was
respondent No. 5. The said Writ Petition was disposed off on 4 th of
September 2024 with the following observations:-
"7. The respondents are directed to take note
of the said fact and if indeed the respondent
No.5 is facing any allegations of malpractices
in running of the hostel then it would be
lawful for the respondents to pass appropriate
order of giving over charge to any untainted
person so that interest of the students
studying in the hostel can be secured because
ultimately the hostel is run for the benefit for
the students and not for the benefit of
Warden. The respondents may pass
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12388
2 WP-30755-2024
appropriate posting order of any untainted
person within a period of 15 days from
today."
In pursuance to the direction given by this Court, petitioner has been
removed and the charge was handed over to the private respondent. The Writ
Petition was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter the Authorities have passed the
order dated 07/10/2024 (Annexure-P/9) which is subsequently challenged in
the Writ Petition by filing an amendment application. The order dated
07/10/2024 reads as under:-
"कायालय वकास ख ड अिधकार , लखनादौन, जला-
िसवनी, (म० ०)
//आदे श//
मांक/930/ था०/2024 लखनादौन, दनांक:- 07/10/2024
सहायक आयु , जनजातीय काय वभाग िसवनी के
आदे श 0/4424/हॉ टल/2024, दनांक 25.09.2024 ारा
दये गये िनदशानुसार ीमती शिशता मसकोले, ाथिमक
िश क को अधी का आ द० क० आ म, मढ़ एवं आ द०
क० आ म खख रया का पूण भार ीमती अचना उईके,
ाथिमक िश क ारा स पा गया है ।
अतः ीमती अचना उईके, ाथिमक िश क को उनक
मूल सं था शास० ाथिमक शाला कसई हे तु कायमु कया
जाता है ।
यह आदे श त काल भावशीला होगा।
वकास ख ड अिधकार
लखनादौन"
The said order reflects that the charge has been taken from the
petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 25/09/2024 passed by the
Additional Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department. The order dated
25/09/2024 (Annexure-P/7) reads under:-
"कायालय कले टर, (जनजातीय काय) िसवनी
संशेिधत आदे श
कं. 4424 Hostel/2024 िसवनी, दनांक 25 िसत बर 2024
माननीय उ च यायालय जबलपुर म तुत यािचका
करण W.p 24683/2024 म. . शासन से दनांक
04.09.2024 को पा रत िनणय एवं वकासख ड लखानादौन
के प /822/ था/2024 दनांक 20.09.2024 तथा कुमार
शिशता मसकोले ाथिमक िश क मढ के ारा तुत
सहमित प दनांक 21.09.2024 के आधार पर कुमार
शिशता मसकाले ( ाथिमक िश क) ाथिमक शाला मढ को
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12388
3 WP-30755-2024
आ दवासी क या आ म मढ म अधी क पद पर वैक पक
प से पद थ करते हुए आ दवासी क या आ म खख रया
वकासख ड लखनादौन का अित र भार स पा जाता है ।
यह आदे श त काल भावशील होगा।
सहायक आयु
जनजातीय काय िसवनी"
It is the case of the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner (Annexure-P/4) levying allegations regarding irregularities
committed in the hostel where she was posted as Warden. She was asked to
submit her reply/ explanation within three days. The petitioner duly
submitted her reply on 04/09/2024 (The same is placed before the Court
during the Court proceedings). Thereafter the impugned order has been
passed.
It is argued that there is no consideration of the reply submitted by the
petitioner. The show cause notice is levying allegations against the petitioner,
therefore the same is punitive in nature. The Authorities are duty bound to
consider the reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner. Nothing is
reflected from document (Annexure-P/9) dated 07/10/2024. As there is no
explanation given in document Annexure-P/9, the same is unsustainable. He
has played for quashment of the same by placing reliance upon a judgment
passed by 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 .
Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 & 6 has not filed any
reply to the petition. The State counsel has preferred a reply to the petition
and made an attempt to justify the issuance of orders impugned. It is argued
that it is only a charge which has been withdrawn from the petitioner and the
petitioner is having no right to hold the current charge. He has placed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12388
4 WP-30755-2024
reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.
and Others, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1.
The fact remains that a show cause notice has been issued to the
petitioner levying certain allegations against her regarding her working and
the same was duly replied by her. The Authorities were duty bound to
consider the reply or explanation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter
should have passed the order.
It is the trite law that the person holding current charge has no legal
right to hold the post in question. If some allegations are leveled against the
petitioner for which show cause notice was issued, then the Authorities were
duty bound to consider the reply or the explanation submitted by the
petitioner and thereafter should have proceeded in the matter. In the present
case, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not even considered as the
same is not reflected in order dated 07/10/2024 or in order dated 25/09/2024.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. (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-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12388
5 WP-30755-2024
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12388
6 WP-30755-2024
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"."
The reasons are the heartbeats of the order. Even the Quasi Judicial
Authorities are required to assign reasons while passing the order. No
reasons are assigned in the present case while passing the order impugned.
Under these circumstances, as the order dated 25/09/2024 (Annexure-
P/7) is a non-reasoned order passed by the Authorities, the same is
unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 25/09/2024 and subsequent
relieving order dated 07/10/2024 are hereby quashed.
The petition stands allowed. However, liberty is extended to the
Authorities to pass a fresh order if need so arises. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
