JUDGMENT
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the orders Annexure – 12 dated February 28, 1972 of the Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Annexure 14 (appellate order) dated July 14, 1977 and Annexure 16 dated September 25, 1978 passed on the review petition.
2. It may be stated that by means of the order (Annexure 12) dated February 28, 1972, in exercise of the powers of the Head of the Department conferred under Government Order No F. 19 (12) Apptts (A) 59/Gr. III dated October 25, 1961, the penalty of removal from Government Service was imposed on the petitioner. An appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the ‘Rules’ hereinafter) was preferred and the appeal was rejected. It will be useful to reproduce the order (Annexure-14) in extenso.
GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
Medical and Public Health Department Gr. 7.
No. F 2(64) MPH/72/Gr.V
Jaipur, dated the 14 July, 1977.
ORDER
Sub : – Appeal filed by Shri Kripal Singh, LDC, Office of the District Medical and Health Officer, Ganganagar.
Shri Kripal Singh LDG Office of the District Medical and Health Officer, Ganganagar has filed an appeal against the order No F.12/OSD/EM/Emb/59/732-40 dated 28-2-1972 issued by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur imposing punishment of removing him from service.
The case was examined thoroughly at Government leval and was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner for seeking their advice The Commission have found themselves in agreement with the learned Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries and agreed that the punishment of removing from service is just and proper.
Hence, the appeal filed by Shri Kripal Singh, LDC, is hereby rejected.
BY ORDER
Sd/-
Dy. Secretary to the Government.
A review petition was preferred and that was rejected and material portion of the order (Anntxure-16), which was communicated to the petitioner is as under:
With reference to his review petition dated 3-5-78, Shri Kripal Singh Gahlotra is hereby informed that review petition is hereby rejected.
3. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of that, respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed reply along with Ex.R. 1 to Ex.R.5. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the reply which was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. It is not necessary to deal with the pleadings of the parties in detail.
4. Mr. B.R. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Balia, Deputy, Government Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3, have stated that this writ petition may be disposed of finally.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised only one contention before me that the appellate order (Annexure-14) dated July 14, 1977 and the order (Annexure 16) dated September 25, 1978 are not speaking orders. They are completely bereft of reasons. They are silent with respect to the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal & in the review petition and as such they are not orders in the eye of law and they should be quashed. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the basis of the decisions reported in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671 and The State of Madras v. Srinivasan A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1827 submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not essential to give reasons in support of the orders. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd’s case A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671, it was observed as under:
The extent and the nature of the reasons depend upon each case. Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly, but in a case of affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with the those reasons. What is essential is that reasons shall be given by appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each cane.
6. Instate of Madras’s case A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1827, while dealing with a case under Article 311 of the Constitution/relating to the compulsory retirement of a Government Servant, it was held:
In dealing with the question as to whether it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of the orders imposing a penalty on the delinquent officer, it is to be remembered that the disciplinary proceedings against such a delinquent officer begin with an enquiry conducted by an officer appointed in that behalf. That enquiry is followed by a report and the Public Service Commission is consulted where necessary. Having regard to the material which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it is unreasonable to suggest that the State Government must record its reason as to why it accepts the finding of the tribunal. It is conceivable that when the State Government does not accept the findings of the Tribunal which may be in favour of the delinquent officer and proposes to impose a penalty on the delinquent officer, it should give reasons as to why it differs from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in such a, case it is not necessary that the reasons should be detailed or elaborate.
7. Rule 30 of the Rules provides for consideration of appeals. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 is as under:
Rule 30 : Consideration of Appeals.
1. …
(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14, the appellate authority shall consider:
(a) Whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice.
(b) Whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established,
(c) Whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order, and
(d) Whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate,
and after consultation with the Commission if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass order:
(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty, or
(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
8. Rule 34 of the Rules provides for the Governor’s power to review. The material portion of Rule 34 of the Rules is as under-
Rule 34. Governor’s Powers to Review:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Governor may, on his own motion or otherwise, after calling for records of the case, review any order which is made or is appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by Rule 35 and, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary:
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order,
(b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order,
(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case, or
(d) pass such other orders as he deems fit.
9. In Travancore Rayons v. Union of India A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 862, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under Section 36 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, have observed as follows:
A party who approaches the Government in exercise of a statutory right, for adjudication of a dispute is entitled to know at least the official designation of the person who has considered the matter, what was considered by him, and the reasons for recording a decision against him. To enable the High Court or this Court to exercise its constitutional powers, not only the decision, but an adequate disclosure of materials justifying an inference that there has been a judicial consideration of the dispute by an authority competent in that behalf in the light of the claim made by the aggrieved party, is necessary.
In that decision, it was observed that the decision of Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v. Union of India A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671 was overruled in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1606. In Mahinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after relying on Gordhandas Bhanji’s case A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 16, ruled as under:
When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.
10. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is to be seen whether the orders (Annexure-14 and Annexure-16) are in accordance with them or not.
11. I have reproduced the appellate order (Annexure-14) and I have no hesitation in saying that it is not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules. It cannot be said to be a speaking order. It contains no reasons in support of the conclusion which was arrived at by the Appellate Authority. There is no adequate disclosure of materials justifying the conclusion that there has been proper and judicial consideration of the points raised by the petitioner in appeal. The same is the case with the order which was passed while rejecting the review petition A perusal of Annexure-16 dated September 25, 1978 shows that the petitioner was merely informed that the review petition has been rejected. As the appellate order and the order rejecting the review petition are not speaking orders, I have no alternative but to quash them.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is partly accepted and the appellate order (Annexure-12) dated February 28, 1972 and the order (Annexure-16) dated September 25, 1978 rejecting the review petition, are hereby quashed. It is directed that the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries (Annexure 12) dated February 28, 1972 shall be decided afresh by the Appellate Authority under Rule 23 of the Rule in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties and in the light of the observations made here in above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this writ petition.