Allowed

L S Mastana v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Mar 2022CWPOA/1733/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a disciplinary penalty order regarding potato seed distribution. The court quashed the appellate order dated 22.2.2017 for being bereft of reasons, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after airing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The appellate order dated 22.2.2017 was quashed; the petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority within 60 days for an afresh decision.

L S Mastana Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO.

¶5

1733 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

SHRI L.S. MASTANA, SON OF SHRI FATEH SINGH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 220, WARD NO. 1, KRISHNA NAGAR, HAMIRPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR (H.P.)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY MR. H.K. PAUL,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (AGRICULTURE) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

¶14

(BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND MR.VINOD THAKUR, ADDL.A.G. FOR THE RESPONDENTS-STATE.)

¶15

This petition coming on for hearing this day, this

¶16

Court passed the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):

¶19

a) Appropriate Writ, Order and/or direction and a Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued against the Respondent quashing/setting aside the disciplinary action taken against the applicant on the basis of the Memorandum dated 25.7.2003 (Annexure A-6), letter dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure A- 11), the order of penalty dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure A-15) and the appellate order No. Agr. F (10) 5/2002-II dated 22.2.2017, Annexure A-18)

¶20

b) The respondent may kindly be directed to release and pay to the applicant all his retirement dues together with the withheld amount of gratuity alongwith interest @ 18% per annum;

¶21

Taking into consideration the nature of order, I propose to

¶22

pass, it is not necessary to delve into the facts in detail, save and except to observe that the petitioner while posted as Deputy Director

¶23

¶24

(Agriculture) Una in the year 2002, was allotted 2500 bags of potato seeds, which were to be distributed to the needy farmers.

¶25

Since there was some discrepancy in the distribution as also the procedure regarding distribution, the petitioner was initially charge-sheeted followed by a regular inquiry, in which a penalty of recovery of Rs. 3,30,032/-was imposed upon the petitioner.

¶26

Aggrieved by the initiation of the departmental proceedings, as also imposition of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to His Excellency, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 22.2.2017, which on

¶27

the face of it, is bereft of any reason, as would be clear from the operative portion of the order, which reads as under:

¶28

“After careful consideration of the relevant factors/appeal, I have come to the conclusion that Sh. L.S. Mastana lacked sense of responsibility, commitment and devotion to the duty i.e. necessary in discharge of duties by a public servant. Charges stand proved. There is nothing malafide in the report of Inquiry Officer. I, therefor, reject the appeal. Penalty of recovery amounting to Rs. 3,30,032/- (Three lacs thirty thousand thirty two) imposed on Sh. Mastana would stand.”

¶29

It is by now settled that the order made by the Appellate

¶30

Authority arising out of disciplinary proceedings must contain reasons

¶31

¶32

for the conclusion reached. A reference in this regard can conveniently

¶33

be made to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶34

“R.P. Bhatt Versus Union of India and others” , AIR 1986 SC 1040 and “Ram Chander Verus Union of India” AIR 1986 SC 1173.

¶35

In “S.D. Sharma Verus State of H.P.”, 2005 Labour Industrial Cases 696, this Court has held that the appellate authority must consider and decide all the grounds raised in the appeal and pass complete and self contained order.

¶36

As observed earlier, it is no more res-integra that the orders passed by the appellate Authority and disciplinary authority must be reasoned and speaking.

¶37

8. In Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & anr/,

¶38

2009 (2) SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶39

“23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a

¶40

¶41

departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Inquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.”

¶42

Referring to the earlier case law on the subject, the

¶43

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney, 2009(4) SCC 240 held that even where the appellate authority agrees with the disciplinary authority, the order passed by it “must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.”

¶44

A similar reiteration of law can be found in a very recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “D.K. Agrawal Versus Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India” , Civil Appeal No. 6337 of 2021, decided on 23.9.2021.

¶45

Since the order passed by the Appellate Authority is bereft of any reason, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed

¶46

¶47

and the order dated 22.2.2017 (Annexure A-18) is quashed and set aside with the direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12.

¶48

The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority

¶49

on 6.4.2022. The entire exercise shall be completed within 60 days.

¶50

The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶51

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶52

March 2, 2022 Kalpana

L S Mastana v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L S Mastana v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oic Vs Shashibala

Oic Vs Shashibala

Collector Land Acquisition and Another Vs Sarla Devi (Deceased) through Her Proposed Lrs Satpal and Others

State Vs Kewla Devi

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar and Others

Parma Nand Vs State of H.P