AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution assails the order of penalty Annexure P-2 dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect. Further challenge is made to the order Annexure P-1 dated 16.08.2018 of Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred against the aforesaid penalty.
Without entering into the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner raises singular issue of the order of penalty passed by Disciplinary Authority and as well as of Appellate Authority being non-speaking.
After hearing learned counsel for rival parties and closely scrutinizing the penalty order Annexure P-2 and as well as appellate order Annexure P-1, it is crystal clear that disciplinary authority and as well as appellate authority after mentioning the facts of the matter including the allegations and charges against the petitioner, the reply filed and the report of the enquiry officer, failed to record any finding disclosing the minds of the authorities as to the reasons for reaching the conclusion at the disciplinary as well as appellate stage Reasons and findings are the bridge between facts and conclusion without which the judgment/order is a lifeless piece of paper. The reasons instill life and blood in a judgment/order, in the absence of which any judgment/order cannot qualify as a judgment/order.
Since both the authorities i.e. Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have been oblivious of the basic fundamental principles of natural justice of recording reasons before passing any order causing adverse civil consequences, this Court is compelled to interfere by exercise of power of judicial review u/Art.226 of Constitution.
Consequently, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated below:
The impugned order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority Annexure P-2 dated 13.10.2017 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority Annexure P-1 dated 16.08.2018 both stand quashed.
The Disciplinary Authority is now at liberty to pass a speaking order which if done the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Appellate Authority.