1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.7512 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 Dr.Mullaikodi ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (K2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. 2. The Director of Medicaland Rural Health Services, Chennai - 6. 3. Joint Director of Health Services, Enquiry Officer, Nagapattinam. 4. The Chief Civil Surgeon, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned G.O.(Pa).No. 320, dated 28.03.2011 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Challenge in this Writ Petition is a Government Order issued in G.O. (Pa).No. 320, Health and Family Welfare Department (k2), dated 28.03.2011, by which, the petitioner has been inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules 1955. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. Though the impugned order is assailed on merits, a perusal of the same shows that the Government, after extracting the details of the enquiry report and the further representation of the writ petitioner, dated 12.10.2010, the impugned order has been passed the impugned order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 in a cryptic manner, by merely recording that the charges as proved. It is well settled in a catena of decisions that the authority, while imposing punishment on the delinquent, has to record reasons for arriving at such conclusion. Mere recording of the events, does not reflect application of mind. What is reflected in the impugned order is only conclusion and there is no reason for the same. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. 4. In Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation v. S.Sampath reported in 2005 (1) LW 795, a Division Bench of this Court, while testing the correctness of an order of recovery of pay from the suspended employee, alleged to have involved in causing shortage of paddy, held that the impugned order therein was only conclusions and did not contain any reasons. While saying so, the Division Bench has considered a decision made in Union of India v. M.L.Capoor reported in AIR 1974 SC 87, where the Apex Court has explained the difference between "reasons and conclusions". At paragraph 28, the Supreme Court in the above reported judgment, observed as follows: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." 5. Yet another Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, was also considered by the Division Bench. In the above reported judgment, at Paragraph 35, the Supreme Court observed that recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. It is not necessary that the reasons should be as elaborate like decision rendered by a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. However, what is necessary is that the reason should be clear and explicit, so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. 6. Following the above said decisions and for the reasons stated supra, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, which is a laconic in nature and accordingly, set aside. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to pass a detailed speaking order, by considering the defence put up by the writ petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare (K2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. 2. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai - 6. 3. The Joint Director of Health Services, Enquiry Officer, Nagapattinam. 4. The Chief Civil Surgeon, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.22199 Vsg SR : 11.07.2011 : 3p/6c W.P.(MD).No.7512 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 07.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/