Telangana High Court

N. Ashok vs The State Of Telangana on 11 June, 2024

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                    WRIT PETITION No.14515 of 2024
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.DC/7873/2018 dt.10.11.2020 imposing penalty of dismissal from service and the orders of the 1st respondent Appellate Authority in Memo No.1294/A&C/Vig./A2/2021, dt:09.02.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and violates Article 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India and contrary to various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service without any break with all consequential attendant benefits with full pay and allowances in the interests of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2) Heard Sri P. V. Ramana, learned senior counsel, appearing for

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services

appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned senior counsel has contended that initially, the second

respondent has passed the order dated 10.11.2020 dismissing the

petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed

an appeal before the first respondent. Vide order dated 20.12.2021

the appeal was rejected by the first respondent. Questioning the

same, the petitioner has approached this Court and vide order dated

09.02.2022 in W.P. No.7049 of 2022, this Court has set aside the

order dated 20.12.2021 and remanded the matter back to the first

respondent for de novo consideration of the appeal. Learned senior

counsel has vehemently contended that earlier this Hon'ble Court has

set aside the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the first respondent

on the ground that no reasons were assigned and thereby remanded

the matter for de novo consideration. In spite of such specific

direction of this Court, the first respondent has again passed the

impugned rejection order dated 27.05.2024, without assigning any

reasons, arbitrarily, in a mechanical manner. Learned senior counsel

has placed reliance on Kalari Nagabhushana Rao v. The

Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur 1, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of

Bihar 2, Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed

Khan 3, and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank 4.

4) Learned Government Pleader has fairly conceded that the

impugned order does not contain any reasons.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective counsel and perused the material on record.

6) A perusal of the record discloses that in W.P. No.7049 of 2022

vide order dated 09.02.2022 this Court while setting aside the

impugned order therein dated 20.12.2021 remanded the matter back

1 AIR 1992 AP 90 2 (2003) 11 SCC 519 3 (2010) 9 SCC 496 4 (2009) 2 SCC 570

to the first respondent. The operative portion of the said order reads

as under:

"6. Having regard to the above, and since the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is bereft of reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for de novo consideration of the appeal. The 1st respondent is further directed to consider and dispose of the appeal, afresh, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, duly recording reasons. No order as to costs."

(emphasis added)

7) The above portion of the order dated 09.02.2022 makes it

crystal clear that the 1st respondent has to dispose of the appeal

afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and

also duly recording the reasons in support of his

conclusion/decision. In spite of the same, the first respondent has

again passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 without affording

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or recording reasons,

without application of mind and without following the directions of

this Court in the order dated 09.02.2022.

8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private

Limited (referred supra) while dealing with the issue of non-

recording of reasons while passing the orders, has held at para 47 as

under:

"47. Summarising 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-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 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 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 suffinct. 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 Harvard Law Review 731-37).

(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 Jurispurdence. 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".

(o) In all common law jurisdiction judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, the development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"."

In view of the above settled proposition of law, the impugned order

passed by the first respondent without assigning any reasons is

highly unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

order passed by the first respondent vide Memo No.1294/A&C/Vig./

A2/2021, dated 27.05.2024, is hereby set aside and the matter is

remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and

disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in the

light of the order dated 09.02.2022 in W.P. No.7049 of 2022 and duly

bearing in mind the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kranti Associates Private Limited (referred supra). It is needless