Kalappa M. Sankad vs Union of India

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This petition though listed in ''B'' Group, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.

Petitioner, while discharging duties as ''Development Officer'' at Bijapur Branch office of the 2nd respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India, was issued with a show cause notice dated 28.3.2011, to which petitioner responded by way of reply, following which the Zonal Manager/3rd respondent by communication dated 10.4.2013 Annexure-L, terminated the services of the petitioner, exercising jurisdiction under sub-rule 9[b] of Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers [Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service]Rules, 2009. Hence this petition.

The communication Annexure-L, except for recording a statement that Zonal Manager is satisfied from the records over the performance and the reply dated 27.2.2013 held that there was no further opportunity to be extended and accordingly terminated the services of the petitioner.

In Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, , it was observed that ''public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.''

It was further held that, ''Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order.''

In Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Woolcombers Workers Union and Another, , the Apex Court observed thus:

"The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reason- which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasons conclusions on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Art. 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases this investment of time and industry will be, saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So it is necessary to emphasize that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give reasons in support of their conclusions."

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, it is needless to point out that the communication Annexure-L falls short of the requirements of law, having failed to assign reasons, and findings, except conclusion.

In that view of the matter, the order dated 27.11.2013 Annexure-R of the Appellate Authority, without noticing the initial infirmity in the order Annexure-L, sequentially is vitiated.

In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The orders Annexures-L & R of the Zonal Manager and that of the Appellate Authority, respectively, are quashed.

It is open for the respondents to initiate action in accordance with law, if they so desire. The other reliefs in the writ petition are kept open for the petitioner to pursue in an appropriate legal proceeding. Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated by 1.12.2014 together with monetary benefits including back wages.