1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.7552 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 V.Mohan ... Petitioner -Vs- The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to G.O.(2-D) No.565 Revenue (Ser.3(1) Department dated 27.09.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondent : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader O R D E R Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. The impugned order is mainly assailed on the ground that though the petitioner has given a detailed representation to the Government on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, namely, the Commissioner for disciplinary proceedings, Tirunelveli, the disciplinary authority has not adverted to the points raised in the further explanation and has merely held the charge as proved, imposing a penalty of stoppage of three years increment with cumulative effect. Though the impugned order is assailed on various grounds, this Court is not inclined to advert to the same, as perusal of the order makes it explicit that the points raised in the further explanation have not been considered, excepting to state that the charges as proved. 3. It is well settled in catena of decisions that reasons are the heart beat of any administrative decision. Apparently, no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order regarding the consideration of the further representation of the petitioner, with reference to the findings of the enquiry officer and the defence put up by the charged official. 4. Useful reference can also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 281, wherein, the Supreme Court, while testing the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the assessment, at Paragraph 10, held as follows: "10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. It is also worthwhile to reproduce the views of Lord Denning in M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All. ER 1148] and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd., v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)], found at Paragraph 11 of the above reported judgment. "Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd., v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)], it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.” “Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can known why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” (emphasis applied by this Court) 6. In view of the above settled legal position, and as there is a manifest illegality in the impugned order, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to pass a detailed and speaking order with reference to the defence put up by the petitioner, in the further representation on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above said directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. W.P.(MD).No.7552 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 vsg/RJ/19.7.11/(2p/2c) 08.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/