ORDER
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.
The facts giving rise to this Petition are brief and may be immediately stated.
1. The petitioner was working as a Senior sister Group-E with the Respondent. She was charged with dereliction of duty and misconduct and an enquiry was initiated against her. During the course of the enquiry, the Management produced three witnesses to prove the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Enquiry Officer, submitted a Report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. On receipt of the said Report, the Management served upon the petitioner a show cause notice asking her to explain as to why she should not be demoted from Group-E to Group-D, as specific punishment for misconduct proved against her. In response to the said show cause notice the petitioner submitted a Representation explaining her position. The Management, however, proceeded ahead with the imposition of the punishment and conveyed the same to the petitioner by an order dated : 10th July 1984 impugned in the present petition.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for parties and perused the records.
3. Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer, against the petitioner was perverse inasmuch as the same was not supported by any evidence whatever. He argued that even though this Court is not expected to re-appraise the evidence adduced in the course of a Departmental Enquiry, so as to substitute the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer by a finding of its own, yet this Court is entitled to interfered in case it is shown that the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer was without any evidence whatsoever. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration through Secy. (Labour) & Ors. .
4. There is no quarrel with the proposition that this Court will be justified in interfering with the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer in case it is found to be perverse in the sense that it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or that the evidence is such on the basis whereof no reasonable person could draw the conclusion actually drawn by the Enquiry Officer. The question, however, is whether the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, in the instant case are really perverse in that sense.
5. I have gone through the statement of the three witnesses record by the Enquiry Officer and the findings returned by him and I am of the view that the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, cannot be said to be perverse or without any evidence. The statement of the witnesses examined before the Enquiry Officer if believed would certainly justify the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer having believed the testimony of the said witnesses, it is not open to this Court to disbelieve the same or to substitute its own finding for that of the Enquiry Officer. The first ground of attack raised by Mr. Subba Rao, against the impugned order, therefore fails.
6. Mr. Subba Rao, next urged that the order impugned did not contain the reasons for rejecting the representation made by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice served upon him. He submitted that the Competent Authority was under an obligation to have examined the said Representation fairly and objectively and to give reasons for ignoring the same. Inasmuch as the impugned order does not record the reasons, Mr. Subba Rao, submitted that the same fell short of the legal requirements.
7. It is well settled that an order passed by an Authority which interferes with a affects the civil rights of a citizen, must be a passed after due and proper application of mind. There is therefore no gain said that the Competent Authority was required to apply its mind to the points raised by the delinquent in her representation and to record its findings on the same. The disclosure of reasons for rejecting the representation is the only method by which such application of mind can be proved. The order impugned does not indeed contain any reasons as to why the representation made by the petitioner against the show cause notice had been turned down. If we were to look only to the order impugned it is indeed silent as to the reasons though it does record that the Competent Authority has considered the representation made by the petitioner and decided to confirm the punishment of demotion of the petitioner as proposed in the show cause notice. That may, however, not be the end of the matter. It is still open to the Competent Authority to disclose from the contemporaneous record, that the representation made by the petitioner had actually been considered before issue of the impugned order. The relevant record was accordingly sent for the produced before me by the learned Counsel for Respondent. A perusal of the record shows that on receipt of the Representation from the petitioner the Personal Officer prepared a note dealing with each point raised by the petitioner against the proposed imposition of the punishment upon her. This note was supported by the Deputy Personnel Manager, who submitted the same for approval. Besides the aforesaid two notes, recorded in the file, there is nothing else to indicate that the Authority competent to impose the punishment had actually applied its mind to the matter and taken a conscious decision.
8. Mr. Gururajan, learned counsel for respondent submitted that since the note prepared by the Personnel Manager and the Deputy Personnel Manager were self-explanatory, it was not obligatory for the Competent Authority to have passed a speaking order. I regret my inability to agree to this proposition. The notes prepared by the Personnel Manager and the Deputy Personnel Manager at best show that the said two Officers applied their mind and recorded their impressions on the entire controversy. That does not however mean that the Competent Authority who had to exercise its jurisdiction was relived of its obligation to apply its mind independently and to pass a speaking order giving reasons why the representation was being turned down. It is well settled that objectivity and fairness in matters where valuable rights of citizens are involved is the only safe-guard against the arbitrary exercise of power. Disclosure of reasons by the competent. Authority would not only show that it had applied its mind fairly and objectively but also enable any higher Authority including this Court to examine the correctness of the reasoning behind the rejection of the employee’s explanation and imposition of the punishment upon him. Inasmuch as the Competent Authority has failed in its obligation of passing a speaking order giving reasons and disclosing application of mind on its part, the order of punishment is rendered invalid.
9. In the result I allow this Writ petition, quash the order impugned, but leave the competent authority free to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made herein-above.
10. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.