IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.38054 of 2006 (O.A.No.6962 of 1998) P.Anthony Rajamani .. Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore – 18. .. Respondent PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.6962 of 1998 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for records in C.P.O.1384/97/O.No.F1/PR 104/97 dated 07.09.1997, C.No.PR 104/97, dated 23.09.1997 and C.No.06301/P3/98 dated 10.03.1998 passed by the respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service, with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.S.Mani For Respondent : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1984. While he was working as Police Constable, he was placed under Suspension on 06.04.1997. Thereafter, a Charge Memo dated 28.04.1997 was served on the petitioner, enquiry conducted and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 07.09.1997. As against the removal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Police which was also rejected by an order dated 23.09.1997. Further, a review petition was filed and it also met the same fate on 10.03.1998. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ original application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.38054 of 2006. 2. The main ground argued by the petitioner is that the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority is not a speaking order at all, no reasoning has been given in all those order and the claim of the petitioner is rejected in one line, which cannot be sustained. As the orders have been passed without application of mind, therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 3. The respondent has filed an reply affidavit. In the reply, the respondent would contend that the petitioner was charged for scolding the higher officials in a drunken mood by using filthy language and the same is a serious offence. It was also found that the petitioner was sleeping in the guard duty. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted properly and based on the report of the enquiry officer, the order of removal has been passed which was also confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority by perusing the entire records. Therefore, such orders cannot be termed as a laconic order and the impugned orders were passed on merits. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 5. On a reading of the impugned by itself, it is very clear that there was no discussion, no findings, no reasoning given in those orders at all. The Orders are extracted below: (i) Disciplinary Authority issued the order as under:- "With reference to the orders in P.R.104/97 dated 01.09.1997 PC 2153/cc p.Antony Rajamani, B5 Crime Police Station, Coimbatore City is removed from service with effect from 01.09.1997." (ii) Appellate Authority Order as under:- "2. I have carefully gone through the appeal petition with connected records. The appellant has not come up with any fresh points for consideration. Considering the gravity of delinquencies committed by the petitioner, the punishing authority has ordered "Removal from service" in his order dated 01.09.1997 which is just and correct. Hence this appeal does not contain anything to merit my intervention. The appeal is rejected." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) Revisional Authority order as under:- "I have carefully gone through the review petition with connected records. I do not find any reason to interfere into the orders passed by the punishing authority. I therefore reject the review petition." On the reading of the above three orders, it is very clear that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority nor the revisional authority have discussed anything at all and they have simply stated that they do not find any reason. In fact the disciplinary authority has not even stated anything and simply stated that with reference to P.R.104/97 dated 01.09.1997 PC 2153/cc, the petitioner is removed from service. 6. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in the latest Judgment reported in G.Vallikumari vs. Andhra Education Society and others (2010 2 SCC 497) that reasons must be given for accepting or rejecting the claim of an individual. In Para 19 it was stated as follows: "19. In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations levelled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1) (d)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognised facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned." As per the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is clear that when the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order, removing the petitioner from service without recording reasons and by simply referring to findings of enquiry officer, it is not sustainable. The order is therefore violative of the statutory rules and principles of natural justices and it is not sustainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi (2008 11 SCC 205) wherein the decision reported in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar (2003 11 SCC 519) was reported. In Para 11, it was held as follows:- "11. "8. .... 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 court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made;....". The above Supreme Court Judgment would clearly indicate that there should be reasoning for any order so as to enable the claimant to know as to and on what basis his contention was not accepted. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the two ruling of this Court reported in V.P.Chellappa v. Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B. Dharmapuri-5 and others (2010 1 MLJ 714) wherein it was held that the order passed by the Appellate Authority should indicate application of mind and reasoning however brief they may be, should be incorporated in the Order, which admittedly is lacking in this case. Paras 8 and 9 are extracted hereunder: "8. It is well settled that the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities are the fact finding authorities and therefore, when the right of appeal is a substantive right, the appellate authority ought to have passed a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal. Atleast the appellate authority, in the interest of justice, should have been indicated his mind while disposing of the statutory appeal. Consideration of the factors by the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities are conspicuously absent in the impugned orders. After recording the sequence of events from the date of formulation of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority, in his three line order, has simply concluded that the petitioner had committed the act of misconduct. In his order, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded as follows: "On perusal of the representation and all connected records, it is found that Thiru.V.P.Chellappa has not put https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ forth any fresh points requiring consideration. Hence, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that Thiru.V.P.Chellappa, Junior Engineer, should be awarded with punishment for the proven charges." 9. There is absolutely no discussion on any one of the points raised by the writ petitioner regarding the correctness of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer nor there is any discussion regarding impropriety in the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry. Perusal of the appellate order also does not indicate as to whether he had applied his mind to the appeal memorandum, dated 25.01.2001, excepting to state that no fresh points have been raised." 9. Another Division Bench Judgment of this Honourable Court reported in K.Elayaperumal vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai (2009 5 MLJ 1530) is extracted hereunder: "11. A Division Bench of this Court has also expressed similar views in K.Elayaperumal v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai and Another (2009) 5 MLJ 1530 (NOC) : (2009) WLR 112, where the Bench has held that the order passed by appellate authority should indicate application of mind and reasons, however brief they may be, should be incorporated in the order. In the said case, it was further held that the Appellate Authority by a very laconic order has merely recounted the allegations and observed that no new point has been brought to the notice. Such an order cannot be construed as reasoned order." 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another judgment of this Court reported in K.Kandasamy v. Deputy Inspector – General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli and another (2006 4 MLJ 1382). In that Judgment, it was held that the Departmental appeal is the last resort for the delinquent to agitate his case on factual details and the rules also support a detailed enquiry. Non-speaking order of the Appellate Authority, is therefore liable to be quashed. 11. In Another judgment of this Court in W.P.No.42286 of 2006 (O.A.No.6787 of 1999) it was held that if there is no discussion or reasoning by any of the authorities, the order is liable to be set aside. Therefore, following the principle as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I hold that the impugned orders lacks in reasoning and therefore, they are set aside. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to modify the punishment straight away when once the impugned orders are set aside, on the ground that the petitioner has been out of service for the past 10 years and that a lenient punishment may be given. But as far as the punishment is concerned, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, it is not appropriate to interfere at this stage. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the original authority for passing orders on merits in accordance with law from the stage of accepting the report of the enquiry officer. Such orders shall be passed untramelled by any of the observations made in this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ogy To The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore – 18. + 1 cc to M/S.S.Mani, Advocate Sr 20218 + 1 cc to Govt., Pleader Sr 20115 W.P.No.38054 of 2006 AKR (CO) RH (15.6.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/