- (1.) THE petitioner Kishori Lal was initially appointed as a literate cleaner in the Western Railway in the year 1945. He was gradually promoted to higher posts and in the year 1970 he was working on the post of a Loco Inspector at Abu Road. On February 13, 1970 the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway Ajmer, who is admittedly the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, issued to him a memorandum along with a charge sheet and a statement of allegations. It Was alleged that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct on account of his irresponsible and irregular working and neglect of duty on his part. THE statement of allegations furnished to the petitioner along with the charge sheet contained nine grounds. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted in which seven persons were examined as witnesses on behalf of the Department and the petitioner produced two witnesses in his defence. THE Enquiring Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority in which he held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. On January 4, 1971 the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service be not Imposed upon him. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated March 19, 1971 imposed the penalty of permanent reduction to the post of Steam Driver grade (c) in the grade of Rs. 150-240 (A) upon the petitioner. THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Bombay, who accepted the appeal on the ground that certain material which was not placed on the record of the enquiry, viz, the confidential reports should not have been relied upon in imposing the penalty upon the petitioner. THE Chief Mechanical Engineer (E), therefore, cancelled the order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Ajmer and remitted the matter back to him for processing the same further without relying on the documents-statements which did not form part of the enquiry proceedings. THEreupon, the Divisional Superintendent considered the matter afresh and passed a fresh order on April 24, 1972 awarding the same penalty to the petitioner of permanent reduction to the post of Steam Driver grade (c ). This order was communicated to the petitioner vide Memorandum dated May 1, 1972 (Annexure 5 ). THE petitioner again filed an appeal against the last mentioned order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, but this time the Chief Mechanical Engineer (E) by his order dated September 8, 1972 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Ajmer dated May 1, 1972 and the appellate order as communicated to him vide memorandum dated September 27,1972 in this writ petition.
(2.) THE first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct and those given by the Appellate Authority, viz, the Chief Mechanical Engineer (E), while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, ought to have been communicated to the petitioner and that serious prejudice was caused to him on account of non-communication of the reasons contained in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. In the writ petition, the petitioner has taken the ground that no reasons were recorded by the Disciplinary Authority while passing a fresh order imposing penalty upon him. But the respondents produced a copy of the detailed order passed by the Divisional Superintendent on April 24, 1972 along with their reply to the writ petition. It was on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Divisional Superintendent dated April 24, 1972 (Annex-ure R. 1) that the communication dated May 1, 1972 was sent to the petitioner, intimating him that the penalty of reduction to the post of Steam Driver Grade (C) permanently was imposed upon him on account of serious misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was seriously prejudiced in his defence as no effective appeal could be maintained by him against the order imposing penalty upon him in the absence of communication to him of the reasons contained in the order Annexure R. 1. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Khilari Versus Union of India (1 ). THE counsel for the Railway Administration, on the other hand, argued that when the Disciplinary Authority was in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer with regard to the charges against the petitioner, it was not necessary for him to communicate the reasons in respect of the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. It was further argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in its fresh order Annexure R. 1 are substantially the same as were recorded on the earlier occasion, in the order dated March 19, 1971 except the objectionable part thereof, in which extraneous matter contained in the confidential reports of the petitioner was considered. It was also submitted by him that the petitioner was very well aware of the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated April 24, 1972 (Annexure R. 1) as in his appeal dated June 21, 1972 the petitioner himself had stated that the fresh order issued on May 1, 1972 is based upon those very findings of the Divisional Superintendent which was found bad by the Appellate Authority on the earlier occasion and which have been set aside in appeal. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel in this respect. There can be no doubt that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and it is necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record sufficient reasons for its conclusions regarding the misconduct of an employee and further that such reasons should be communicated to the employee concerned. In Ram Khilari vs. Union of India (1) this Court held that it was incumbent upon the competent Disciplinary Authority to set out the reasons which led it to reach the conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the concerned delinquent employee was proved and that the imposition of penalty was justified in the facts and circumstances of each case. Following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Travancore Rayons Ltd. vs. The Union of India (2) were relied upon in this context : "in this case the communication from the Central Government gave no reasons in support of the orders, the appellant Company is merely intimated thereby that the Government of India did not see any reasons to interfere "with the order in appeal". The communication does not disclose the "points" which were considered, and the reasons for rejecting them. This is a totally unsatisfactory method of disposal of a case in exercise of the judicial power vested in the Central Government. Necessity to give sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached in cases where a non-judicial authority exercises judicial functions, is obvious. When judicial power" is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency. The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds: One, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court, has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous: the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power ". It was also held in Ram Khilari's case that not only the reasons for holding the employee guilty of some misconduct should be recorded by the concerned Disciplinary Authority, but such reasons should also be communicated to the affected party and that non-communication of reasons in respect of an order passed by an Administrative Authority, which is required to act in a quasi-judicial manner, could not be supported on the ground that the reasons could be extracted from the file, although not communicated to the concerned delinquent employee. In M/s Ajanta Industries vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (3) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made the following observations, which are relevant this respect: - " Communication of the order is an absolutely essential requirement since the assessee is then immediately made aware of the reasons which impelled the authorities to pass the order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is submitted, on behalf of the Revenue, that the very fact that reasons are recorded in the file, although these are not communicated to the assessee, fully meets the requirement of Section 127 (1 ). We are unable to accept this submission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The person for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution and even to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is malafide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . when Law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any person, who can challenge the order in Court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice on account of ommission to communicate the reasons is not expiated. " In Ram Khilari's case the facts were that the petitioner, who were railway employees, were removed or dismissed from service without holding any enquiry by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities for taking part in All India Strike of Railwaymen, which took place in May 1974, on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in accordance with the prescribed rules. In some of those cases, the Disciplinary Authorities concerned did not record any reasons for holding the delinquent employees guilty of the charges of serious misconduct, while in the case of some employees although the concerned Disciplinary Authorities had recorded the reasons for holding that the employees concerned had committed serious misconduct, yet such reasons were not communicated to the concerned employee$. In those cases as no enquiry was held either by the Disciplinary Authority or by any Enquiring Officer appointed by such Authority, the question of the Disciplinary Authority concurring with the report of the Enquiring Officer did not arise. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was held that the concerned Disciplinary Authorities should have recorded the reasons which led them to arrive at the conclusion that the concerned employees were guilty of the charges of serious misconduct and further that the reasons so recorded by the Disciplinary Authority should be communicated to the concerned employee so that the order could be challenged by the aggrieved person, either by way of an appeal or by approaching this court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. As already mentioned above, in the present case the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Enquiring Officer, who conducted an enquiry into the charges of serious misconduct levelled against the petitioner and the finding recorded by the Enquiring Officer (a copy of Which has been produced by the petitioner on record and is marked Annexure 12) was supplied to the petitioner along with the order of Disciplinary Authority dated March 19, 1971 and the memorandum dated March 20, 1971. In cases where the Disciplinary Authority concurs with the finding arrived at by the Enquiring Officer, it may not be necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record its reasons separately but in cases where the Disciplinary Authority differs from the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiring Officer it would be necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record its reasons for coming to a contrary conclusion.
(3.) IN Tara Chand vs. Delhi Municipality (4) the Law on the subject has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - ". . . . . . although it may be necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record its provisional conclusions in the notice calling upon the delinquent officer to show cause why the proposed punishment be not imposed upon him if it differs from the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer with regard to the charge, it is not obligatory to do so in case the Disciplinary Authority concurs with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . We would like to make it clear that while it may be necessary for a disciplinary or administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions to state the reasons in support of its order if it differs from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by the enquiring officer in view of the scheme of a particular enactment or the rules made thereunder. It would be laying down the proposition a little too broadly to say that even an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. It cannot also, in our opinion, be laid down as a general rule that an order is a non-speaking order simply because it is brief and not elaborate. Every case, we think, has to be judged in the light of its own facts and circumstances. " Their Lordships held in Tarachand's case (4) that the following observations made by them in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (5) contained a correct statement of law : "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 those reasons. " Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also quoted with approval the folio-wing observations made by them in State of Madras vs. A. R. Srinivasan (6) : "in dealing with the question as to whether it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of the order imposing a penalty on the delinquent officer, we cannot overlook the fact 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 thus made available to the State Government and which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it seems to us somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the State Government must record its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal. It is conceivable that if 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 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. But where the State Government agree with the findings of the Tribunal which are against the delinquent officer, we do not think as a matter of law, it could be said that the State Government cannot impose the penalty against the delinquent officer in accordance with the findings of the Tribunal unless it gives reasons to show why the said findings were accepted by it. The proceedings are, no doubt, quasi-judicial, but having regard to the manner in which these enquiries are conducted, we do not think an obligation can be imposed on the State Government to record reasons in every case. " Thus, the law in this respect is well settled and if the Enquiring Officer has recorded his findings against the delinquent employee and the Disciplinary Authority merely concurred with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer, it is not incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record its reasons for accepting the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer. ;