JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.12.2003 issued by the respondent No. 3 – Chief Engineer-cum-Additional Commissioner- cum-Special Secretary, Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has. been awarded punishment of dismissal and, for quashing of the order dated 30th January, 2004 passed by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner’s departmental appeal has been rejected. The main grounds for assailing the said two orders, canvassed in the writ application, are that the impugned orders are mechanical, cryptic and non-speaking and the same have been passed in violation of rule of natural justice.
2. In order to appreciate the said grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to state the relevant fact in brief.
The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on 11.4.1980 and was posted in Public Works Department, Koderma Division. Except for the intervening period from 28.6.1991 and 16.1.1993, when he was posted at Hazaribagh, he had been at Koderma. Suddenly on the charge of committing irregularity and defalcation, the petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 3.8.2001. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on 3.9.2001 alleging that while the petitioner was a Bill Clerk in PWD Koderma, he defalcated the amount of retired employees worth Rs. 5,35,152.00 and that he confessed withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 88,322/- which he was ready to deposit. He subsequently deposited that amount. The said criminal case was followed by a department proceeding and a charge-sheet was served on him containing several articles of charge and mainly alleging defalcation of a sum of Rs. 7.56 lakhs and odds. According to the petitioner, he filed his reply against the charge before the Enquiry Officer denying the same. According to him, there was no defalcation of the amount. The further case of the petitioner is that after submission of the reply, no date was fixed for further inquiry by the Enquiry Officer to his notice and the same proceeded ex parte. Ultimately the impugned order, contained in Annexure 24, was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and dismissing the petitioner from the service. According to the petitioner, though it has been mentioned that there was an inquiry, yet no inquiry report was ever served on him. There has been blatant violation of the principle of natural justice and he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The further grievance of the petitioner is that even in the impugned orders, no evidence has been mentioned and discussed on the basis of which the conclusion of the guilt of the petitioner has been recorded and in such perfunctory manner the punishment of dismissal has been awarded. The order of the disciplinary authority is non-speaking and cryptic and even no reason has been assigned in support of the conclusion of the said order and thus, the said order is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Further, he filed departmental appeal before the Secretary. Public Works Department, Road Construction Department (respondent No. 2) assailing the order of the disciplinary authority on several grounds, but by his order dated 31.1.2004 the appellate authority also rejected the appeal mechanically without discussing the materials and evidences on record and without any application of his mind on the grounds of the appeal. According to the petitioner, the said order is contrary to the established law and the same is also wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
3. The respondents have appeared and filed a short counter affidavit. No parawise reply denying the facts stated by the petitioner, has been given in the said counter affidavit. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the same is not maintainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the respondents, there are serious charges of misconduct and loss of Government property and for which, a criminal prosecution has also been launched against the petitioner and, in that view of the matter, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are wholly justified and legal.
4. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the grounds taken in the writ application, submitted that from bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure-24) and that of the appellate authority (Annexure-26), it would be evident that the same are cryptic, mechanical and colourable. The said orders are not supported by any reason and the same do not contain any discussion of the evidences and materials on record or even the details of the enquiry report and they have just recorded the conclusion on the only ground that the petitioner was given opportunity but he failed to appear and take part in the departmental inquiry. According to the learned counsel, even the copy of the inquiry report has not been served on him and he was deprived of his valuable legal right and thus, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Dr. Pathak placed his reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision Union of India v. Ramjan Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appellate order which has been passed by the respondent No. 2, is also vitiated due to the said reason and also for the reason that the respondent No. 2 has failed to act as an appellate authority as required by the prescribed rules and also under the provisions of law.
5. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned SC-III, on the other hand, has supported the said orders. According to Mrs. Sen Choudhary, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities, but he himself evaded the inquiry in spite of service of notice. According to her, the notice was served through newspapers. The petitioner refused to stand, did not intentionally take part in the inquiry and as such, the inquiry was concluded in his absence. On the basis of the inquiry report, the order has been rightly and validly passed by the disciplinary authority which is valid and legal. According to her, there is no violation of principle of law or principle of natural justice and the said orders are wholly justified. She further contended that from the impugned order of the appellate authority it appears that the inquiry report was served on the petitioner. According to Mrs. Sen Choudhary, at least this is on record that he has confessed his guilt of defalcation worth Rs. 88000/- and odds only and which has also been recorded in the FIR, Mrs. Sen Choudhary further submitted that it was within his knowledge that he has defalcated the amount which included retiral benefits.
6. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the records, I find that the impugned order (Annexure-24) is laconic, cryptic and non-speaking. The order in brief states the charges and then that on the basis of the documents and the evidences on record, the charges are proved and the conclusion is the order of dismissal of the petitioner. I do not find any discussion of the documents or the evidences on the basis of which that conclusion has been drawn. The said order is without any reason. Similarly, in the order as contained in Annexure-26 also, there is no discussion of the documents or other evidences and grounds taken in appeal. There is mere conclusion that what has been held by the disciplinary authority is justified and on that basis, the appeal has been rejected.
7. Thus, the said impugned orders are absolutely without any reason and against the settled principles of law. It has now been well established that any order which visits the delinquent with civil consequences, must be supported by just and valid reasons. The said impugned orders having been wholly cryptic and non-speaking, and not conforming to the requirements of law and principle of natural justice as well as the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India are, thus, wholly un sustainable. The said impugned orders are, thus, quashed and this petition is allowed. However, this order does not debar any proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.