ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES – APPLICATION OF MIND BY AUTHORITY WHETHER MUST – Accident by the driver of a KSRTC bus – Articles of charge issued by the Corporation to the driver – Order issued to deduct the petitioners salary in monthly installments – Same challenged on the ground that his reply is not considered in the impugned order and the same liable to be quashed for non-application of mind – HELD – Respondent have issued a cyclo styled order without even referring or considering to the representation submitted by the petitioner. Cyclo styled orders are to be deprecated as otherwise the very object of opportunity is defeated if the authorities are permitted to fill up the blanks and issue orders affecting the rights of the parties. Application of mind is to be shown with reference to the facts that filling up the printed forms would not inspire confidence of application of mind.
Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1. The petitioner-Mahadeva is before me challenging Annexure-A, an order dated 30-1-2004 issued by the respondents.
2. The petitioner was working as driver with the respondent. On 23-11-2003, he was operating the bus bearing Regn. No. KA 07 F 622 between Dharmavaram and Bangalore. When the bus came to Kaveri theatre near Bellary Road he noticed the red signal and stopped the bus. As soon as the green signal appeared the petitioner slowly moved the bus and a Maruthi van bearing Registration No. KA 04-4587 was on the left side of the bus and the driver of that vehicle was talking over his mobile phone. As soon as the green signal appeared, the Maruthi van driver also moved his vehicle and suddenly turned to the right and stopped. The petitioner applied break and due to this the Maruthi van was touched by the bus and some dents were caused to the van. A complaint was filed by the Maruthi van owner and article of charge was issued by the second respondent. Article of charge is at Annexure-B. The petitioner submitted a reply in terms of Annexure-C. Thereafter, respondents have issued Annexure-A. In Annexure-A, the respondent wants to deduct the petitioner’s salary in monthly installment. This order is challenged.
3. Notice was issued and the respondents have entered appearance. Respondents state that the petitioner has a remedy in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have also given the details of the incident. They say that they have imposed a minor penalty contemplated under Regulation 22.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record.
5. From the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner was issued with articles of charges in terms of Annexure-B. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply in terms of Annexure-C. Thereafter, Annexure-A is issued. Annexure-A is a cyclostyled order issued by the respondent. From a reading of Annexure-A it is seen that what the respondent seems to have done is to fill up the blank spaces for the purpose of imposing minor penalty. It is also stated in Annexure-A that the petitioner has not submitted any reply. Admittedly, the petitioner did submit a reply in terms of Annexure-C. Therefore, I am of the view that Annexure-A is nothing but a clear case of non-application of mind. Moreover, it is nothing but a cyclostyled order without consideration of relevant material on record. Original file was also made available to the Court. It is seen from the original file that the petitioner did submit a reply in terms of Annexure-C. However, while issuing the impugned notice, there is no reference to Annexure-C in the order.
6. Regulation 22 provides for a reasonable opportunity of making a representation with regard to the proposal. In the case on hand, a representation is made and the said representation is neither considered nor referred to in the cyclostyled order. In these circumstances, I am fully satisfied that the respondents are wrong in issuing this order. I must also notice at this stage that the respondent is a public body and it is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They are required to act in a fair manner. They have issued a cyclostyled order without even referring to the representation submitted by the petitioner. Cyclostyled orders are to be deprecated as otherwise the very object of opportunity is defeated if the authorities are permitted to fill up the blanks and issue orders affecting the rights of the parties.
7. Expressing my displeasure, I deem it proper to allow this matter and remit the matter for re-decision.
8. This Court in Vijaya Bank, Bangalore and Anr. v. State by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bangalore, 2000(1) Kar. L.J. 457 : ILR 2000 Kar. 4773 has noticed the factum of taking cognizance of a printed pro forma. This Court in the above referred case has ruled that taking of cognizance in a printed form is to be deprecated since cognizance has to be after application of mind. The Court ruled that cognizance being taken on the printed pro forma is mechanical and cannot be sustained. This judgment supports the petitioner.
9. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel however refers to me a judgment in Hanumanthi v. PCH Marketing Services, Bangalore, 2001(6) Kar, L.J. 63 : ILR 2002 Kar. 2429 in his support. A reading of the said judgment would show that the learned Judge after noticing the relevant facts in the said order has ruled that there is sufficient compliance notwithstanding the order being a typed one with blank columns filled up later. That is not the case here. That judgment is distinguishable on facts. Even in that case, the Court has deprecated the practice of filling up the typed form.
10. These judgments would show that the application of mind is to be shown with reference to the facts that filling up the printed forms would not inspire confidence of application of mind. These judgments support the petition.
11. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A is set aside. A direction is issued to reconsider the matter in the light of the representation and pass appropriate orders after applying the mind to the relevant facts in terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations.
12. Ordered accordingly. No costs.