[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivekanand Jha vs Central Bank Of India Thr. on 12 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
1 WP-2105-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2105 of 2018
VIVEKANAND JHA
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THR. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri K. N. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Ms. Suhani Dhariwal -
learned counsel for respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"i- The orders impugned annexures P/1 and P/2
may kindly be quashed.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also
kindly be granted."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner retired from
the post of Manager in the Central Bank of India, Vidisha. A show-cause
notice dated 30.06.2014 was issued to petitioner. Petitioner submitted a
detailed reply to the said show-cause notice stating that no irregularity had
been committed by him. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued.
Subsequently, Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 20.06.2017
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
2 WP-2105-2018
imposing the punishment of recovery of one-third of the petitioner's monthly
pension permanently in terms of Regulation 48 of the Central Bank of India
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Being aggrieved, petitioner
preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority, raising various facts and
grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, without properly
considering the detailed reply submitted by petitioner and without affording
him an opportunity of being heard, the Appellate Authority rejected the
appeal vide order dated 24.08.2017 by passing a non-speaking and
unreasoned order. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority, being
the final authority, was required to consider all aspects of the matter and after
weighing the documents and marshalling the evidence, pass a reasoned order
in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Appellate order has been passed
without application of mind in violation of the principles of natural justice
and without granting any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. The said order
is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. , (2010) 9 SCC
3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent/Bank submits that
there is no infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found
guilty of dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it
was found that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore,
aforementioned orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate
and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the appellate
authority has also examined the entire record and on perusal of the material,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
3 WP-2105-2018
the order of the competent authority was affirmed by the appellate authority.
Hence after having proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate
authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present matter and petition
prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. It is further
submitted that the only scope of interference in the cases of punishment is to
examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is conducted. In the
present case the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in view of the
norms of natural justice and fair play. On these grounds he prays for rejection
of this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Important part of the appeal rejection order dated 24.8.2017 is
quoted herein below:-
"Disciplinary Action was initiated against Ex-staff Shri V.N Jha
Ex Manager, T.C Vidisha Branch under Regional Office Bhopal
in terms of Charge-sheet no. RO/HRD/DAD/15-16/395 Dated
27/10/2015 and Addendum Charge sheet
No.RO/HRD/DAD/2015-16/691 dated 19/03/2016.
After completion of the Departmental Enquiry into the charges
appearing against him, the Disciplinary Authority, Shri Jai
Prakash Deputy Regional Manager Regional Office, Bhopal vide
his order no. RO/HRD/17-18/106 Dated 20/06/2017, imposed on
him the CONSOLIDATED punishment of " Recovery of 1/3rd of
his monthly pension permanently in terms of Regulation 48 of
Central Bank of India Employees (Pension) Regulation 1995.
Aggrieved with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the
member has submitted an appeal dated 20/07/2017 which has been
placed before me for its disposal.
I have gone through the Charge-sheet, findings of inquiring
Authority, orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appeal
preferred by Shri Jha (appellant).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
4 WP-2105-2018
After careful examination, I do not find any merit to interfere with
the findings and orders of the Disciplinary Authority and therefore
UPHOLD the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.
It is ordered accordingly."
6. From perusal of appeal rejection order issued by Appellate
Authority dated 24.8.2017 (Annexure P/1), it is clear that Appellate
Authority while passing an order rejecting the appeal of petitioner is
exercising quasi judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a
speaking order. The Appellate Authority must apply its mind to the entire
facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason and all
grounds in support of its conclusion.
7. On perusal of the appellate order, it does not appear to be a speaking
one.
8. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised
with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the
necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its
decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial
authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties
must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is
relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
5 WP-2105-2018
Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature
must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the
reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his
conclusion.
10. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced
decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
"7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun
v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382.
However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not
have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot
take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision
must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of
this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N
Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair
Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517" 31.
11. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others
cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial
authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties,
must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph
47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-
paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
6 WP-2105-2018
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(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 lifeblood 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.
(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 Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v.
Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University
of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred
to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions".
12. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and
unreasoned order, therefore, in absence of reason in the punishment order
cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order,
therefore, the argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the
appellate order is reasoned and speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC
427 has held as under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out
below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
7 WP-2105-2018
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
8 WP-2105-2018
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".
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains
reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original
order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in
the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
L.K. Ratna and others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been
held:
"......after the blow suffered by the initial
decision, it is difficult to contemplate
complete restitution through an appellate
decision. Such a case is unlike an action for
money or recovery of property, where the
execution of the trial decree may be stayed
pending appeal, or a successful appeal may
result in refund of the money or restitution of
the property, with appropriate compensation
by way of interest or mesne profits for the
period of deprivation. And, therefore, it
seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure
that there is no breach of fundamental
procedure in the original proceeding, and to
avoid treating an appeal as an overall
substitute for the original proceeding."
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the
show cause notice as also the order dated 19.03.2008
passed by the third respondent. In view of that, the
appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is
quashed."
13. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5755
9 WP-2105-2018
rejection order dated 24.8.2017 (Annexure P/1) and accordingly I do so.
14. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority
to reconsider and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law by passing
a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to
petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
