Patna High Court
Madan Prasad Roy vs The State Of Bihar on 8 October, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10468 of 2020
======================================================
MADAN PRASAD ROY Son of Late Ram Bahadur Prasad Roy Resident of
Ward No. 1, Sonvarsha Tola, P.O.- Mathurapur, P.S.- Khagaria Sadar, District-
Khagaria
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE) Munger Division,
Munger
6. The District Education Officer, Khagaria, District- Khagaria
7. The District Programme Officer, Munger, District- Munger
… … Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Binita Singh, Standing Counsel-28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08-10-2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Director, Secondary
Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna, whereby and whereunder punishment has been inflicted
upon the petitioner and he has been reverted to the lowest time
scale salary with effect from the date of issuance of the order.
The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate
order dated 01.09.2020, passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the
appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The
petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the enquiry report
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
2/17
dated 29.11.2019 as also for directing the respondents to pay his
salary from August, 2019 to February, 2020 i.e. for the period of
suspension, for which the petitioner has not even been paid the
subsistence allowance.
2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner
are that one Priyaranjan Kumar (Assistant Teacher), Project
Girls High School, Dumariya Bujurg, Khagaria, was transferred
by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger on
29.06.2018 to the school where the petitioner was posted as In-
Charge Headmaster. The said transfer order was illegal
inasmuch as the same was issued without verifying the
sanctioned strength of the petitioner’s school i.e. Shovani
Chandpura, Inter School, Jalkoidha, Khagaria. The petitioner
had then approached the Director, Secondary Education, seeking
guidance regarding accommodating and adjusting the aforesaid
Priyaranjan Kumar inasmuch as the said incumbent had been
transferred vide transfer order dated 29.06.2018, beyond the
sanctioned strength of the school, however, the Director,
Secondary Education, considered the said act of the petitioner of
directly communicating with him to be an indication of
indiscipline, hence a show cause notice dated 26.10.2018 was
issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had then offered an
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
3/17
apology, however, subsequently the petitioner was put under
suspension vide order dated 22.08.2019 and on the same day a
charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner alleging therein
that the petitioner had accepted the joining of one Priyaranjan
Kumar on 07.07.2018 and only on 04.09.2018, he had sought
guidance from the Director, Secondary Education regarding
adjustment of Priyaranjan Kumar, after making payment of
salary to him, hence the petitioner had engaged in misconduct.
It was also alleged that though there was no vacant post of
Assistant Teacher in the school in question, the petitioner had
not only adjusted the said Priyaranjan Kumar but had also
helped him by illegally releasing his salary and only after a long
time, vide letter dated 04.09.2018, the petitioner had informed
about non-availability of vacant post of teacher in the said
school as also had sought guidance as to on what post the said
Priyaranjan Kumar should be adjusted, thus the same shows
carelessness and arbitrariness on the part of the petitioner as also
amounts to the petitioner having engaged in financial
irregularity. The petitioner had then submitted his reply dated
14.10.2019 stating therein that he had only complied with the
order dated 29.06.2018, passed by the Regional Deputy Director
of Education, Munger, made pursuant to the recommendation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
4/17
the Divisional Establishment Committee and moreover, since it
was clearly mentioned in the said transfer order that the transfer
was being made against a vacant post, the petitioner had no
occasion to doubt the correctness of the said order dated
29.06.2018, however, only when the petitioner had visited the
office of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger and
obtained a list of the sanctioned posts of the schools of the
District, he came to know about the sanctioned strength of his
school and regarding non-availability of vacant post for
accommodating the said Priyaranjan Kumar, thus he had sought
guidance from the Director, Secondary Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna inasmuch as the order of transfer had been
issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger.
It was also stated by the petitioner in his reply that since the said
teacher had worked for the month of July and there was
direction to make payment of his salary, the petitioner had
implemented the order of his superior authorities.
The Enquiry Officer, had then submitted the enquiry
report dated 29.11.2019, apparently with a perverse finding to
the effect that only when the said Priyaranjan Kumar was made
In-Charge, of the school by the District Education Officer, vide
memo dated 23.10.2018, the petitioner had raised objection and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
5/17
sought guidance regarding the said irregularity as also had
become active. Nonetheless, the Enquiry Officer had found the
charge leveled against the petitioner to have been proved.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide letter dated
27.12.2019 had issued a second show cause notice to which the
petitioner had submitted his reply and then the Director,
Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, by the
impugned order dated 28.02.2020, has inflicted major
punishment of reversion to the lowest time scale salary with
effect from the date of issuance of the order, upon the petitioner.
The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however, the same has
also been dismissed by an order dated 01.09.2020 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and has
travelled beyond the charge inasmuch as the charge was that
though the aforesaid Priyaranjan Kumar was transferred on
29.06.2018 and his joining was accepted by the petitioner on
07.07.2018 but he had raised the issue regarding there being no
vacant post of Assistant Teacher in the school in question
belatedly and had sought guidance from the Director, Secondary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna only on 04.09.2018,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
6/17
however, the Enquiry Officer has come to a finding that for the
first time, the petitioner had become alert and had sought
guidance only after the said Priyaranjan Kumar was sought to be
made In-Charge of the school by the District Education Officer,
Khagaria vide Memo dated 23.10.2018 and the petitioner was
directed to hand over the charge. Thus, it is submitted that the
finding of the Enquiry Officer is beyond the materials on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the reply submitted by the petitioner has neither been considered
by the Enquiry Officer nor by the disciplinary authority, which
is apparent from the enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 and the
impugned order of punishment dated 28.02.2020. Lastly, it is
submitted that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the
petitioner by the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 is
disproportionate, hence on this ground as well the order of
punishment dated 28.02.2020 is fit to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
State has submitted that there is no irregularity in the conduct of
the departmental proceeding and this Court is not required to re-
appreciate the evidence and sit in appeal over the order of
punishment dated 28.02.2020, passed by the disciplinary
authority, hence no interference is required, either with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
7/17
punishment order dated 28.02.2020 or for that matter with the
appellate order dated 01.09.2020.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record and I find that no infirmity can
be found out as far as the enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 is
concerned, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer has merely come to
a finding, which cannot be disputed by the petitioner, to the
effect that the aforesaid Priyaranjan Kumar was transferred by
an order dated 29.06.2018, whereafter the petitioner had
accepted his joining on 07.07.2018 despite the fact that in the
school in question, of which the petitioner was In-Charge,
Headmaster, there was no vacant post of Assistant
Teacher/Teacher, hence it cannot be said that the petitioner had
not engaged in negligence/ dereliction in discharge of his duties,
apart from the fact that the petitioner had admittedly sought
guidance from the authorities belatedly, i.e only after releasing
the salary of the said Priyaranjan Kumar. This Court further
finds that it would hardly make a difference as to whether the
petitioner had sought guidance, regarding the issue in question,
either vide his letter dated 04.09.2018 or had become alert, as
has been stated in the enquiry report dated 29.11.2019, only on
23.10.2018 when the said Priyaranjan Kumar was sought to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
8/17
made In-Charge of the school inasmuch as by that time the
petitioner had already erred by not only accepting the joining of
the said Priyaranjan Kumar, though there was no vacant post of
Teacher/ Assistant Teacher in the school in question, but also
releasing salary to him. Thus the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the finding of
the Enquiry Officer is perverse and travels beyond the charge, is
misconceived, hence is rejected. Now, coming to the other
argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to
the effect that the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 passed by
the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna neither
considers the reply of the petitioner nor contains any reason for
coming to a decision to inflict major penalty of reversion to the
lowest time scale salary as also the punishment is
disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner,
this Court finds from a bare perusal of the punishment order
dated 28.02.2020 that the same does not contain any cogent,
clear and succinct reasons in support of the impugned order
dated 28.02.2020 as also for arriving at a conclusion to inflict
major punishment upon the petitioner, which in any view of the
matter is an indispensable component of a decision making
process and moreover, the impugned order dated 28.02.2020
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
9/17
does not take into account the reply submitted by the petitioner
as also smacks of non-application of mind, hence the impugned
order dated 28.02.2020 stands vitiated in the eyes of law.
6. It is a well settled law that a disciplinary authority/an
administrative authority, in an order passed by it, is required to
record reasons for its decision in a clear and explicit manner so
as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to
the various issues involved and the need for recording of
reasons is even greater in a case where the order is passed at the
original stage. Reference in this connection be had to a
judgment reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC 984 (S.N. Mukherjee vs.
Union of India), paragraph nos. 35, 36, 38 and 39 whereof are
reproduced herein below:-
“35. Reasons, when recorded by an ad-
ministrative authority in an order
passed by it while exercising quasi-judi-
cial functions, would no doubt facilitate
the exercise of its jurisdiction by the ap-
pellate or supervisory authority. But the
other considerations, referred to above,
which have also weighed with this
Court in holding that an administrative
authority must record reasons for its de-
cision, are of no less significance. These
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
10/17
considerations show that the re- cord-
ing of reasons by an administrative au-
thority serves a salutary purpose,
namely, it excludes chances of arbitrari-
ness and ensures a degree of fairness in
the process of decision-making. The
said purpose would apply equally to all
decisions and its application cannot be
confined to decisions which are subject
to appeal, revision or judicial review. In
our opinion, therefore, the requirement
that reasons be recorded should govern
the decisions of an administrative au-
thority exercising quasi judicial func-
tions irrespective of the fact whether the
decision is subject to appeal, revision or
judicial review. It may, however, be
added that it is not required that the
reasons should be as elaborate as in the
decision of a Court of law. The extent
and nature of the reasons would depend
on particular facts and circumstances.
What is necessary is that the reasons
are clear and explicit so as to indicate
that the authority has given due consid-
eration to the points in controversy. The
need for recording of reasons is greater
in a case where the order is passed at
the original stage. The appellate or re-
visional authority, if it affirms such an
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
11/17
order, need not give separate reasons if
the appellate or revisional authority
agrees with the reasons contained in the
order under challenge.
36. Having considered the rationale for
the requirement to record the reasons
for the decision of an administrative au-
thority exercising quasi-judicial func-
tions we may now examine the legal ba-
sis for imposing this obligation. While
considering this aspect the Donough
more Committee observed that it may
well be argued that there is a third prin-
ciple of natural justice, namely, that a
party is entitled to know the reason for
the decision, be it judicial or quasi-judi-
cial. The committee expressed the opin-
ion that “there are some cases where the
refusal to give grounds for a decision
may be plainly unfair; and this may be
so, even when the decision is final and
no further proceedings are open to the
disappointed party by way of appeal or
otherwise” and that “where further pro-
ceedings are open to a disappointed
party, it is contrary to natural justice
that the silence of the Minister or the
Ministerial Tribunal should deprive
them of the opportunity.” (P 80) Prof.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
12/17
H.W.R. Wade has also ex- pressed the
view that “natural justice may provide
the best rubric for it, since the giving of
reasons is required by the ordinary
man’s sense of justice.” (See Wade, Ad-
ministrative Law, 6th Edn. P. 548). In
Siemens Engineering Co. case (Supra)
this Court has taken the same view
when it observed that “the rule requir-
ing reasons to be given in support of an
order is, like the principles of audi al-
teram parlem, a basic principle of natu-
ral justice which must inform every
quasi-judicial process.” This decision
proceeds on the basis that the two well-
known principles of natural justice,
namely (i) that no man should be a
Judge in his own cause and (ii) that no
person should be judged without a
hearing, are not exhaustive and that in
addition to these two principles there
may be rules which seek to ensure fair-
ness in the process of decision-making
and can be regarded as part of the prin-
ciples of natural justice. This view is in
consonance with the law laid down by
this Court in A.K. Kraipak and Others
v. Union of India and Others, [1970] 1
SCR 457, wherein it has been held:
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
13/17
“The concept of natural justice
has undergone a great deal of
change in recent years. In the
past it was thought that it in-
cluded just two rules namely (i)
no one shall be a Judge in his
own cause (nemo dabet esse
judex propria causa) and (ii) no
decision shall be given against a
party without affording him a
reasonable hearing (audi alteram
partem). Very soon thereafter a
third rule was envisaged and that
is that quasi-judicial enquiries
must be held in good faith, with-
out bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. But in the course
of years many more subsidiary
rules came to be added to the
rules of natural justice.” (P. 468-
69) A similar trend is discernible
in the decisions of English Courts
wherein it has been held that nat-
ural justice demands that the de-
cision should be based on some
evidence of probative value. (See:
R. v. Deputy Industrial Injuries
Commissioner ex P. Moore,
[1965] 1 Q.B. 456; Mahon v. Air
New Zealand Ltd., [1984] A.C.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
14/17
648.”
38. The object underlying the rules of
natural justice “is to prevent miscar-
riage of justice” and secure “fairplay in
action.” As pointed out earlier the re-
quirement about re- cording of reasons
for its decision by an administrative au-
thority exercising quasi-judicial func-
tions achieves this object by excluding
chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a
degree of fairness in the process of de-
cision-making. Keeping in view the ex-
panding horizon of the principles of
natural justice, we are of the opinion,
that the requirement to record reason
can be regarded as one of the principles
of natural justice which govern exercise
of power by administrative authorities.
The rules of natural justice are not em-
bodied rules. The extent of their appli-
cation depends upon the particular
statutory framework whereunder juris-
diction has been conferred on the ad-
ministrative authority. With regard to
the exercise of a particular power by an
administrative authority including exer-
cise of judicial or quasi- judicial func-
tions the legislature, while conferring
the said power, may feel that it would
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
15/17
not be in the larger public interest that
the reasons for the order passed by the
administrative authority be recorded in
the order and be communicated to the
aggrieved party and it may dispense
with such a requirement. It may do so
by making an express provision to that
affect as those contained in the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A.
and the Administrative Decisions (Judi-
cial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia
whereby the orders passed by certain
specified authorities are excluded from
the ambit of the enactment. Such an ex-
clusion can also arise by necessary im-
plication from the nature of the subject
matter, the scheme and the provisions of
the enactment. The public interest un-
derlying such a provision would out-
weight the salutary purpose served by
the requirement to record the reasons.
The said requirement cannot, therefore,
be insisted upon in such a case.
39. For the reasons aforesaid, it must
be concluded that except in cases where
the requirement has been dispensed
with expressly or by necessary implica-
tion, an administrative authority exer-
cising judicial or quasi-judicial func-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
16/17
tions is required to record the reasons
for its decision.”
7. Now coming back to the present case, this Court finds
that no reason whatsoever has been furnished by the disciplinary
authority, while passing the impugned order of punishment
dated 28.02.2020, in support of its decision to inflict major
penalty upon the petitioner and further the said order, passed by
the disciplinary authority, does not either show consideration of
the reply of the petitioner or application of mind by the
disciplinary authority or any justification for passing the said
order dated 28.02.2020, thus the impugned order of
punishment dated 28.02.2020 is unsustainable in the eyes of
law, hence is quashed.
8. A bare perusal of the penalty inflicted upon the
petitioner, by the disciplinary authority vide order dated
28.02.2020 i.e. reversion to the lowest time scale salary, is in
the considered opinion of this Court harsh, excessive and
disproportionate to the offence alleged, thus requires
reconsideration by the disciplinary authority. On this ground as
well the impugned order of punishment dated 28.02.2020 is bad
in the eyes of law and fit to be set aside.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10468 of 2020 dt.08-10-2021
17/17
case as also considering the fact that since the order of
punishment dated 28.02.2020 has already stood quashed, the
appellate order dated 01.09.2020 has got no legs to stand apart
from the fact that the same is perverse, inasmuch as the same
does not either consider or deal with the issues raised by the
petitioner in the memo of appeal, this Court deems it fit and
proper to set aside the appellate order dated 01.09.2020. As a
result of quashing of the order of punishment dated 28.02.2020
as also the appellate order dated 01.09.2020, the matter is
remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass an order
afresh, taking into account the reply furnished by the petitioner
to the second show cause notice, the materials available on
record and the observations made herein above in the preceding
paragraphs, within a period of six weeks of receipt/production
of a copy of this judgment.
10. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 10.09.2021
Uploading Date 13.10.2021
Transmission Date
Comments