PETITIONER:
TARA CHANDKHATRI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT26/11/1976
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1977 AIR 567 1977 SCR (2) 198
1977 SCC (1) 472
ACT
Service matter--Disciplinary Authority--Recording,
reasons--When obligatory.
High Court--If under a duty to enquire into allegations of
mala fides.
HEADNOTE
The appellant, a school teacher under the Delhi Munici-
pal Corporation. was dismissed from service by the Deputy
Commissioner (Education) after following the procedure
prescribed under the Regulations. His appeal to the Commis-
sioner of the Corporation was dismissed and his writ peti-
tion was dismissed in limine by the High Court. On further
appeal to this Court it was contended that (I ) the order of
dismissal was invalid for the reason that the Commissioner
being the appointing authority, the Deputy Commissioner was
incompetent to dismiss him and the regulation conferring
power on the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss a municipal
employee drawing less than Rs. 350 being inconsistent with
s. 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 is void;
(2) since the disciplinary authority had neither recorded
its findings nor given its reasons in the order of dismissal
it is vitiated and (3) the petition should not have been
dismissed in limine by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (1 ) The appellant’s appointment having been made
by the Deputy Commissioner, who possessed plenary powers in
that behalf by virtue of the delegation of power to him,
there was neither any legal bar to ’his dismissal by that
authority nor a breach of the first proviso to s. 95(1). In
his writ petition before the High Court the appellant failed
to make any averment regarding the incompetence of the
Deputy Commissioner to pass the impugned order and the
invalidity of the regulation. None of his pleas was tenable
in view of the order of the Commissioner delegating his
powers to the Deputy Commissioner his actual appointment as
an Assistant Teacher by the Deputy Commissioner and regula-
tion 7 being consistent with s. 95(1) of the Act. [204 E&C]
The Managment of D.T.U. v. Shri B.B.L. Hajeley & Ant.
[1973] 2 S.C.R. 114 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Ram Partap Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2449(N) of 1969 delivered
on January 8, 1976), held inapplicable.
(2)(a) Although it may be necessary for the disciplinary
authority to record its provisional conclusions in the
notice calling upon the delinquent officer to show cause why
the proposed punishment be not imposed upon him if it dif-
fers from the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer
with regard to the charge, it is not obligatory to do so in
case the disciplinary authority concurs with the findings of
the enquiring officer. [205 F]
In the instant case it is apparent from the order of the
Deputy Commissioner that he agreed with the findings of the
Enquiring Officer. [208 A]
State of Orissa v. Govinddas Pande (Civil Appeal No. 412
of 1958 decided on December 10, 1962) and State of Assam &
Anr. v. Vimal Kumar Pandit A.I.R 1963 S.C. 1612 followed.
(b) While it may be necessary for a disciplinary or
administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions
to state the reasons, in support of its order if it differs
from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made
by
199
the enquiring officer in view of the scheme of a particular
enactment or the rules made thereunder, it would be laying
down the proposition a little too broadly to say that even
an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. it
cannot be laid down as a general rule that an order is a
non-speaking order simply because it is brief and not elabo-
rate. Every case has to be judged in the light of its own
facts. [208 B]
Sardar Govindrao & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
[1965] 1 S.C.R. 678, Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India &
Ors. [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302, Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of
India [1970] 3 S.C.R. 40; Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v.
State of U.P. & Ors. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201, Rangnath v. Daula-
trao & Ors. [1975] 1 S.C.C. 686 and The Siemens Engineering
& Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. TIre Union of India &
Anr. [1976] 2 S.C.C. 981, inapplicable.
(c) M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1966] 1
S.C.R. 466 contains a correct statement of law. In Bhagat
Raja v. The Union of India, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302 this Court
did not make any observations which can be interpreted as
overruling the majority judgment in the former case. In
view of the amendment of r. 55 of the’ Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960 the decision in Bhagat Raja’s case was differ-
ent from M.P. Industries case which had been rendered on
the unamended r. 55 of the Rules. [212 A; 211 B]
(3) The High Court was not wrong in dismissing the writ
petition. in limine because a prima jacie case requiring
investigation had not been made out by the appellant. The
High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on inves-
tigation into the allegations of mala fides if necessary
particulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are
not given in the petition. Since the burden of establishing
mala fides lies very heavily on the person who alleges them
and the allegations made. in regard thereto, in the writ
petition were not sufficient to establish malus animus. The
High Court was justified in dismissing the petition without
issuing notice to the other side. [212 C-D]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 1972.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the 28th March 1972 of the Delhi High Court in Civil
Writ No. 179/72.
M.K. Ramamurthi, K.B. Rohatagi, V.K. Jain and M.M.
Kashyap, for the Appellant.
S.N..Andley, B.P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is di-
rected against the judgment and order dated March 28, 1972
of the High Court of Delhi dismissing in limine the writ
petition filed by the appellant herein.
The facts essential for the purpose of this appeal are:
The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on
temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 68-170, which was
subsequently revised to Rs. 118-225, in the Primary School,
Northern Railway Colony II run by the Education Department
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, with effect from
October 1, 1958. He was confirmed on the said post on
September 30, 1959. On August 28, 1964, he was transferred
to the Senior Basic Middle School of the Corporation in
Panna Mamirpur, Narela 11. In September, 1967, he was
assigned the work of teaching certain subjects to both the
sections of Class V. In section A of Class V, there
200
was at that time a student named Surinder Kumar, son of Dhan
Raj. On September 6, 1967, Dhan Raj made a written complaint
to the Education Officer of the Corporation, a copy of which
he endorsed to the Head Master of the School, alleging
therein that the appellant bad sensually misbehaved with his
son, Surinder Kumar in the School Premises during the recess
time on 2nd and 4th September, 1967. On October 5, 1967,
the Education Officer suspended the appellant. On April 15,
1968, the Assistant Education Officer, Rural North Zone, was
directed by his superior to prepare a charge sheet against
the appellant whereupon a charge sheet was drawn up and
served on the latter on November ’16, 1968. Therefore, the
Director of Inquiries, who was deputed to enquire into the
matter proceeded to hold the enquiry and on consideration of
the evidence adduced before him, he submitted a report on
May 20, 1969, holding that the charge levelled against the
appellant had been established. On receipt of the report
and perusal thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Education of
the Corporation passed the following order on May 20, 1969:
"I have gone through the report of the
Inquiry Officer and agree with his findings.
The Inquiry Officer has held the charge of
committing an immoral act with a student of
Class V, levelled against Shri Tara Chand
Khatri, A/T (Respondent) as proved. Such an
act on the part of a teacher is most
unbecoming, serious and reprehensible. I
propose to impose the penalty of ’dismissal’
from service which shall be a disqualification
for future employment on the respondent."
Consequent upon the passing of this order, a notice was
issued to the appellant requiring him to show cause why the
penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him. On
July 11, 1969, the appellant submitted his representation in
reply to the show cause notice. By order dated July 30,
1968, the Deputy Commissioner, rejected the representation
of the appellant and imposed the penalty of dismissal from
service upon him. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant
preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of the Corporation
on August 29, 1969, under regulation 11 of the Delhi Munici-
pal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations,
1959 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulations’) Which
was rejected by the Commissioner on September 13, 1969. On
October 11, 1971, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition
No. 1032 of 1969 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the
aforesaid order of his dismissal from service. ’The High
Court allowed the petition on the ground that the order of
the Appellate Authority was made in violation of the re-
quirements of regulation 15 of the Regulations and directed
the Appellate’ Authority to dispose of the appeal afresh on
merits keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of
the case as also the requirements of Regulation 15 of’ the
Regulation. While disposing of the writ petition, the
learned Judge added that if the appellant still felt ag-
grieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority he would
be at liberty in appropriate proceedings not only to chal-
lenge the order of the Appellate Authority but the order of
the disciplinary authority as well. On remand, the Commis-
sioner of the Corporation who happened to be an officer
different from the. one who rejected the appellant’s appeal
on the former occasion heard the appe-
201
llant at considerable length but rejected the appeal by an
elaborate order dated January 5, 1972. The appellant
thereupon filed writ petition No. 179 of 1972 in the High
Court of Delhi challenging the order dated July 30, 1969 of
the Deputy Commissioner, Education, as well as the order of
the Appellate Authority dated January 5, 1972. This petition
was, as already stated, summarily dismissed without the
issue of a notice to the respondents. The appellant then
made an application to the High Court for leave to appeal to
this Court but the same was also rejected.
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Ramamurthi
has vehemently contended that the appointing authority of
the appellant being the Commissioner under section 92 of the
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act’), his dismissal from service by the Deputy
Commissioner (Education)--an authority subordinate to the
Commissioner is illegal. The counsel has next urged that
regulation 7 of the Regulations and the Schedule referred to
therein conferring power on the Deputy Commissioner to
dismiss a municipal officer or other employee drawing a
monthly salary of less than Rs. 350/- being inconsistent
with section 95 of the Act is void and consequently the
impugned order of the appellant’s dismissal from service
passed in exercise of that power is also illegal and
invalid. The counsel has further contended that the
impugned order of the appellant’s dismissal from service
being a quasi-judicial order is vitiated as the disciplinary
authority has neither recorded its findings with respect to
the charge drawn up against the appellant as required by
regulation 8(9) of the Regulations nor has it given its
reasons for passing the order. The counsel has lastly
urged that the High Court ought not. to have dismissed the
petition in limine without calling upon the respondents to
file the return as it raised not only arguable points of law
but also contained allegations of male fides against the
respondents. We shall deal with these points seriatim. But
before embarking on that task, we consider it apposite to,
refer to a few provisions of the Act and regulations which
have an important bearing on the case.
Under section 92(1)(b) of the Act, as in force at the
relevant time the power of appointing municipal officers and
other municipal employees whether temporary or permanent, to
posts carrying a minimum monthly salary (exclusive of allow-
ances) of less than three hundred and fifty rupees was
vested in the Commissioner. Subsection (1)of section 95
of the Act provided that every municipal officer or other
municipal employee shall be liable ......... to be cen-
sured, reduced in rank, compulsorily retired, removed or
dismissed for any breach of any departmental regulations or
of discipline or for carelessness, unfitness, neglect of
duty or other misconduct by such authority as may be. pre-
scribed by regulations. The first proviso. to this sub-
section, however, contained the following rider:--
"Provided that no such officer or other
employee as aforesaid shall be reduced in
rank, compulsorily retired, removed or
dismissed by any authority subordinate to that
by which he was appointed."
202
Section 491 of the Act which is in the
nature of an enabling provision provided as
under:--
"The Commissioner may by order direct that any
power conferred or any duty imposed on him by
or under this Act shall, in such
circumstances and under such conditions, if
any, as may be specified in the order, be
exercised and performed also by any officer
or other municipal employee specified in the
order."
It is admitted by the appellant that in: exercise of the
power conferred on him under section 491 of the Act, the
Commissioner had vide his order No. (1)58 Law Corp-1 dated
April 7, 1958, directed that all the powers conferred on him
under the various provisions of. the Act would be exercised
also by the Deputy Commissioner subject to his supervision,
control and revision.
Regulation 7 of the Regulations and the
Schedule referred to therein read as under:--
"Regulation 7: The authority specified in
column 1 of the Schedule may impose on any of
the municipal officers. or other municipal
employees specified there against in column 2
thereof any of the penalties specified there
against in column 3 thereof. Any such
officer or employee may appeal against the
order imposing upon him any of those penalties
to the authority specified in column 4 of the
said Schedule."
SCHEDULE
Description of posts Authority Penalties Appellate
competent Authority
to impose
penalties
Posts whose minimum Deputy All Commissioner
monthly salary (exclu- Commissioner
sive of allowances) is
less than three hund-
red and fifty rupees.
Do. Any municipal
officer (i) & (ii) Deputy Co-
or employee mmissioner
to whom po-
wers to im-
pose penal-
ties is de-
legated under
section 491.
It would also be advantageous to refer to regulation 8
of the Regulations in so far as it is relevant for the
purpose of this appeal.
"Regulation 8: ................
203
(9) The Disciplinary Authority, shall,
if it is not the Inquiring Authority,
consider the record’ of inquiry and record its
findings on each charge.
(10) If the Disciplinary Authority,
having regard to its findings on the charges,
is. of the opinion that any of the penalties
specified in regulation 6 should be imposed,
it shall :--
(a) furnish to the municipal officer or
other municipal employee a copy of the report
of the Inquiring Authority and, where the
Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring
Authority, a statement of its findings
together with brief reasons for disagreement,
if any, with the findings of the Inquiring
Authority; and,
(b) give him a notice stating the action
proposed to. be taken in regard to him and
calling upon him to submit within a specified
time such representation as he may wish to
make against the proposed action.
(11) The Disciplinary Authority shall
consider the representation, if any, made by
the municipal officer or other municipal
employee in response to the notice under
subregulation (10) and determine what penalty,
if any, should be imposed on the municipal
officer or other municipal employee and pass
appropriate orders on the case.
(12) Orders passed by the Disciplinary
Authority shall be communicated to the
municipal officer or other municipal employee
who shall also be supplied with a copy of the
report of the Inquiring Authority and where
the Disciplinary Authority is not the
Inquiring Authority, a statement of its
findings together with brief reasons for
disagreement, if any, with the findings of the
Inquiring Authority, unless they have already
been supplied to him."
Having noticed the relevant provisions, we now pass on
to. consider the contentions raised on behalf of the appel-
lant. Adverting to the first two contentions raised before
us on behalf of the appellant, it may be stated that neither
of them appear from the record to have been raised before
the High Court. It was not the case of the appellant in
the petition filed, by him under Article 226 of the Consti-
tution that since his appointment as an Assistant Teacher
was actually made by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commis-
sioner was. not competent to dismiss him from service.
What was asserted by him at that stage is contained in
ground No. VI of the petition and’ may be reproduced below
for facility of reference:--
"Because in any. case, respondent No. 3 has no
jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Under
section 92 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act, 1957, the petitioner could be
204
appointed only by the Commissioner and under
section 95 of the said Act, he should be the
dismissing authority. In the present case,
however, the Commissioner had by notification
under section 491 of the said Act, delegated
his power to the Deputy Commissioner under
Circular NO. 4(1)/8-Law Corp. 1 dated
7.4.1958. The dismissing order was made by
the Deputy Commissioner as delegatee i.e. as
exercising the powers of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner, therefore, could not sit in
appeal on such an order. Only the Standing
Committee of the Corporation could have heard
the appeal."
The omission to make the aforesaid averments in the writ
petition regarding the incompetence of the Deputy Commis-
sioner to pass the impugned order of dismissal from service
and invalidity. of regulation 7 of the Regulations appears
to be due to the. fact that the appellant fully realised
that none of these pleas could be tenable in view of the
aforesaid order No. (1) 58 Law Corp. 1 dated April 7, 1958
made by the Commissioner delegating all his powers to the
Deputy Commissioner his actual appointment as an Assistant
Teacher by the Deputy Commissioner and regulation 7 of the
Regulations which far from being repugnant to section,, 95
of the Act is perfectly consistent with it as sub-section (1
) of that section itself makes a municipal employee liable
to be compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed etc. by
such authority as may be prescribed by the Regulation. The
prohibition contained in the first proviso to this Sub-
section is confined in its operation only to a case where
an officer or employee of the Corporation is retired, re-
moved or dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed. In the instant case, ’the appel-
lant’s appointment having been made by the Deputy Commis-
sioner, who possessed plenary powers in., that behalf by
virtue of the aforesaid delegation order, there was; neither
any legal bar to the appellant’s dismissal from service by
that very authority nor a breach of the first proviso to
sub-section (1 ) of section 95 of the Act.
The decision of this Court in The Management of D.T.U.v.
Shri B.B.L. Halelay & Anr.(1) sought to be relied upon by
Mr. Ramamurthi related to an appointment which rested on a
deeming provision and is not at all helpful to the appel-
lant. Rospondent No. 2 in that case was Originally employed
as a driver in the Delhi Road Transport Authority which had
been constituted under the Delhi Road Transport Authority
Act, 1950. By section 516(1)(a) of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act,1957 which came into force in January, 1958,
the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950, was repealed
and the functions of the Delhi Road Transport Authority were
taken over by the Corporation by virtue of several other
provisions of the Act. Under section 511 of that Act i.e.
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, every officer and
employee of the Transport Authority including respondent
No,. 2 stood transferred and become an officer and employee
of the Corporation and under section 92(1) (b) read with
section 516(2) (a) of the Act, the said respondent was
(1) [1973] 2 S.C.R. 114.
205
to be deemed to have been appointed by the General Manager
(Transport). The respondent in that case thus being re-
quired by fiction of law to b,e taken to have been appointed
by the General Manager, he could not have been removed from
service in May, 1963 by the Assistant General Manager--an
authority subordinate to the General Manager--in view of the
first.proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act
despite the fact that the functions of the General Manager
had been delegated to the Assistant General Manager in May,
1961. In that case, it was made clear by this Court that the
only consequence of the delegation order was that if after
1961, the Assistant General Manager had made the appointment
of respondent No. 2, he would have no doubt been entitled to
remove him from service but the position had to be deter-
mined with reference to the time, when he was absorbed in
the Corporation which was in January, 1958.
The judgment of this Court in. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Ram Pratap Singh(1) is also not helpful to the
appellant as in that case, the appointment was in fact made
by the Commissioner white the dismissal was by the Deputy
Commissioner.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the first two
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant which are
totally misconceived are repelled.
The third contention advanced by Mr. Ramamurthi that the
impugned order of the appellant’s dismissal from service is
vitiated ’as the disciplinary authority has neither recorded
its findings with respect to the charge drawn up against the
appellant as required by regulation 8(9) of the Regulations
nor has it given its reasons for passing the order cannot
also, be countenanced as. it overlooks the decisions of this
Court, which fully cover the case.
Regarding the first limb of the contention, it may be
stated that although it may be necessary for the discipli-
nary authority to record. its provisional conclusions in
the notice calling upto the delinquent officer to, show
cause why the. proposed punishment be not imposed upon him
if it differs from the findings arrived at b,y the enquiring
officer with regard to the charge, it is not obligatory to
do so in case the disciplinary authority concurs with the
findings of the enquiring officer. We are supported in this
view by two decisions of this Court in State of Orissa v.
Govinddas Panda(2)-and State of Assam & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar
Pandit(3). In Govinddas Panda’s case (supra) where the
notice issued under’ Article 311(2) did not expressly state.
that the State Government had accepted the findings record-
ed by the enquiring officer against the Government servant
in question and where even the nature of the punishment
which was proposed to be inflicted on. him was not specifi-
cally and clearly indicated, this Court while reversing
the conclusions of the Orissa, High Court that the notice
was defective and so that provisions of Article 311(2) had
been contravened observed:--
(1) C.A. No. 2249 (N.) of 1969 decided on 8-1-1976.
(2) C.A. No. 412 of 1958 decided on 10-12-1962.
(3) A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1612.
206
"In the context, it must have been obvious to
the respondent that the punishment proposed
was removal from service and the respondent
was called upon to show cause against that
punishment. On a reasonable reading of the
notice, the only conclusion at which one can
arrive is that the appellant (the State)
accepted the recommendation of the
Administrative Tribunal and asked the
respondent to show cause against the proposed
punishment, namely, that of removal from
service."
In Bimal Kumar Pandit’s case (supra) while, reversing
the judgment and order of the High Court allowing the writ
petition filed by the respondent against his reduction in
rank on the ground that the notice served upon him under
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was void as it did not
expressly and specifically indicate either the conclusions
of the dismissing authority or the findings recorded by the
enquiring officer or that the dismissing authority accepted
the findings of the enquiring officer and unless that course
was adopted, it would not be clear that the dismissing
authority had applied its mind and had provisionally come to
some conclusion both in regard to the guilt of the public
officer and the punishment which his misconduct deserved the
Constitution Bench of this Court observed:
"It may be conceded that it is desirable
that the dismissing authority should indicate
in the second notice its concurrence with the
conclusions of the enquiring officer before it
issues the said notice under Article 311(2).
But the question which calls for our decision
is it the dismissing authority does not
expressly say that it has accepted the
findings of the enquiring officer against the
delinquent officer, does that introduce such
an infirmity in the proceedings as to make the
final order invalid ? We are not prepared to
answer this question in the affirmative. It
seems to us that it would be plain to the
delinquent officer that the issuance of the
notice indicating the provisional conclusions
of the dismissing authority as to the
punishment that should be imposed on him
obviously and clearly implies that the
findings recorded against him by the enquiring
officer have been accepted by the dismissing
authority; otherwise there would be no sense
or purpose in issuing the notice under Article
311(2)."
At another place, the Court observed:
"We ought, however, to all that if, the
dismissing authority differs from the findings
recorded in the enquiry report, it is
necessary that its provisional conclusions in
that behalf should be specified in the second
notice. It may be that the report makes
findings in favour of the delinquent officer,
but the dismissing authority disagrees with
the said findings and proceeds to issue the
notice under Article 311 (2). In
207
such a case, it would obviously be necessary
that the dismissing authority should expressly
state that it differs from the findings
recorded in the enquiry report and then
indicate the nature of the action proposed to
be taken against the delinquent officer.
Without such an express statement in the
notice, it would be impossible to issue the
notice at all. There may also be cases in
which the enquiry report may make findings in
favour of the delinquent officer on some
issues and against him on other issues. That
is precisely what has happened in the present
case. If the dismissing authority accepts all
the said findings in their entirety, it is
another matter; but if the dismissing au-
thority accepts the findings recorded against
the delinquent officer and differs from some
or all of those recorded in his favour and
proceeds to specify the nature of the action
proposed to be taken on its own conclusions,
it would be necessary that the said
conclusions should be briefly indicated in the
notice. In this category of cases, the action
proposed to be taken would be based not only
on the findings recorded against the
delinquent officer in the enquiry report, but
also on the view of the dismissing authority
that the other charges not held proved by the
enquiring officer are according to the
dismissing authority, proved. In order to
give the delinquent officer a reasonable
opportunity to show cause under Art. 311(2),
it is essential that the conclusions
provisionally reached by the dismissing
authority must, in such cases, be specified in
the. notice. But where the dismissing
authority purports to proceed to issue the
notice against the delinquent officer after
accepting the enquiry report in its entirety,
it cannot be said that the dismissing
authority must say that it has so accepted the
report. As we have already indicated, it is
desirable that even in such. cases a statement
to that effect should be made. But we do
not think that the words in Art. 311 (2)
justify the view that the failure to make
such a statement amounts to. contravention of
Art. 311(2) ....... There is no doubt that
after the report is received, appropriate
authority must apply its mind to the report
and must provisionally decide whether the
findings recorded in the report should be
accepted or not. It is only if the findings
recorded in the report against the Government
servant are accepted by the appropriate
authority that it has to provisionally decide
what action should be taken against him. But
this does not mean that in every case, the
appropriate authority is under a
constitutional obligation to state in the
notice that it has accepted the adverse
findings recorded by the enquiring officer
before it indicates the nature of the action
proposed to be taken against the delinquent
officer."
In the instant case, the incorrectness of the first limb
of the contention is apparent from a bare reading of the
aforesaid order passed
208
by the Deputy Commissioner on May 20, 1969 which clearly
states that he agrees with the findings of the enquiring
officer. Reading the order as a whole, it becomes crystal
clear that the disciplinary authority held the charge drawn
up against the appellant as proved.
The second limb of the third contention raised on
behalf of the appellant which also overlooks the decisions
of the Constitution Bench this Court does not commend itself
to us. In this connection, we would like to make it clear
that while it may be necessary for a disciplinary or admin-
istrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions to
state the reasons in support of its order if it differs from
the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by
the enquiring officer in view of the scheme of a particular
enactment or the rules made thereunder, it would be laying
down the proposition a little too broadly to say that even
an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. It
cannot also, in our opinion, be laid down as a general rule
that an order is a non-speaking order simply because it is
brief and not daborate. Every case, we think, has to be
judged in the light of its own facts and circumstances.
Reference in this connection may be made with advantage to a
catena of decisions. In Bimal Kurnar Pandit’s case (supra)
it was categorically laid down by the Constitution Bench of
this Court that it was not a requirement of Article 311(2)
that in every case, the punishing authority should in its
order requiring the civil servant to show cause give not
only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also
the reasons for coming to that conclusion. In that case,
it was clarified that the view is not justified that the
appropriate authority must state its own grounds or reasons
for proposing to take any specific action against the delin-
quent Government servant.
In State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan(1) the Constitution
Bench this Court while repelling the contention advanced on
behalf of the respondent that the State Government’s order
compulsorily retiring him from service was bad as it did not
give reasons for accepting the findings. of the enquiring
tribunal and imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement
observed as follows:--
"Mr. Setalvad for the respondent attempted to
argue that the impugned order gives no
reasons why the appellant accepted the
findings of the Tribunal. Disciplinary
proceedings taken against the respondent, says
Mr. Setalvad, are in the nature of quasi-
judicial proceedings and when the appellant
passed the impugned order against the
respondent, it was acting in a quasi-judicial
character. That being so, the appellant
should have indicated some reasons as to why
it accepted the findings of the Tribunal, and
since no reasons are given, the order should
be struck down on that ground alone.
We are not prepared to accept the
argument. In dealing with the question as to
whether it is obligatory on the
(1) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1827=(1966) 2 S.C.W.R.
524.
209
State Government to give reasons in support
of the order imposing a penalty on the
delinquent officer, we cannot overlook the
fact that the disciplinary proceedings
against such a delinquent officer begin with
an enquiry conducted by an officer appointed
in that behalf. That enquiry is followed by a
report and the Public Service Commission is
consulted where necessary. Having regard to
the material which is thus made available to
the State Government and which is made
available to the delinquent officer also, it
seems to us somewhat unreasonable to suggest
that the State Government must record its
reasons why it accepts the findings of the
Tribunal. It is conceivable that if the
State Government does not accept the findings
of the Tribunal which may be in favour of the
delinquent officer and proposes to impose a
penalty on the delinquent officer, it should
give reasons why it differs from the
conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in
such a case, it is not necessary that the
reasons should be detailed or elaborate. But
where the State Government agrees with the
findings of the Tribunal which are against the
delinquent officer, we do not think as a
matter of law, it could be said that the State
Government cannot impose the penalty against
the delinquent officer in accordance with the
findings of the Tribunal unless it gives
reasons to show why the said findings were
accepted by it. The proceedings are, no doubt,
quasi-judicial, but having regard to the
manner in which these enquiries are conducted,
we do not think an obligation can be imposed
on’ the State Government to record reasons in
every case."
In Som Datt Datta v. Union of India & Ors. (1) while approv-
ing the English law and practice and overruling 1he conten-
tion advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the orders of
the Chief of the Army Staff confirming the proceedings of
the Court-Martial under section 164 of the Army Act and the
order of the Central Government dismissing the appeal of the
petitioner under section 165 of the Army Act were illegal
and ultra vires as they did not give reasons in support Of
the orders, the Constitution Bench of this Court summed up
the legal position as follows :-
Apart from any requirement imposed by
the statute or statutory rule either
expressly or ’by necessary implication, there
is no legal obligation that the statutory
tribunal should give reasons for its decision.
There is also no general principle or any rule
of natural justice that a statutory tribunal
should always and in every case give reasons
in support of its decision.
In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India &
Ors.(2) this Court repelled the contention of counsel for
the appellant that every order appealable under Article 1,36
of the Constitution must be a speak-
(1) [1969] S.C.R. 176.
S.C.R. 466-A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671.
--1458SCI/76
210
ing order and the omission to give reasons for the decision
is of itself a sufficient ground for quashing it and held
that an order of an administrative tribunal rejecting a
revision application cannot be pronounced to be invalid on
the sole ground that it does not give reasons for rejection.
While distinguishing the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala(1) where the Central Government
reversed the decision of the State Government without giving
reasons for reversal, this Court pointed out that there was
a vital difference between the order of reversal by the
appellate authority and the order of affirmance by the
revising authority and that if the revising authority re-
jects a revision application stating that there was no valid
ground for interference with the order of the subordinate
authority in such a case, it could not be held that the
order was arbitrary or that there was no trial of the revi-
sion application. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) speaking
for himself in that case observed :-
"Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional
tribunal shall give its own reasons
succinctly; but in a case of affirmance where
the original tribunal gives adequate reasons,
the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal
or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing
with those reasons."
In Judicial Review of Administrative
Action (Second Edition), Prof. S.A. de Smith
has observed at page 418 as follows :-
"If the record is incomplete (e.g.
because reasons or findings of material fact
are omitted), has the court power to order
the tribunal to complete its record? It is
common ground that the court has no inherent
power to compel a tribunal to give reasons for
its decisions ........ If, of course, a
tribunal is required by statute to declare its
reasons or its findings on the material facts,
an order of mandamus may be obtained to compel
the tribunal to perform its legal duty ....
Where a tribunal that is not expressly obliged
to give reasons for its decisions chooses not
to give any reasons for a particular decision,
it is not permissible to infer on that ground
alone that its reasons for that decision were
bad in law. Even if it gives reasons, which
are ex facie insufficient in law to support
its decision, the court will not necessarily
assume that these are the sole reasons on
which the tribunal has based its decision.
(See Cf. Davies v. Price [1958] 1 Y.L.R. 434
at 440 and R.v. Minister of Housing and Local
Government, ex. P. Chichester R.D.C. [1960] 1
W.L.R. 587)."
Before concluding the discussion in regard to the third
contention, we may point out that none of the decisions viz.
Sardar Govindrao & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2)
Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. (3) Travancore
Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India(4) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar
v. State of U.P. & Ors.(5)Rangnath v. Daulat Rao & Ors. (6)
and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Company of India
Ltd. v. The Union of India(7) on which Mr. Ramamurthi has
(1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 339. (2) [1965] 1 S.C.R.678.
(3) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302. (4) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 40.
(5) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201. (6) [1975] 1 S.C.C. 686.
(7) [1976] 2 S.C.C 981.
211
heavily leaned has anything to do with disciplinary proceed-
ings. At such, they have little bearing on the point with
which we are at present concerned.
We would also like to point out that the observations in
Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) that in
Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. (supra)., this
Court in effect overruled the judgment of the majority in
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
(supra) seem to have crept therein through some oversight.
A careful perusal of the decision in Bhagat Raja v. The
Union of India & Ors. (supra) would show that this Court did
not make any observations therein which can be interpreted
as overruling the. majority judgment in Madhya Pradesh
Industries Ltd. v. Union of1 India & Ors. (supra). It is
also worthy of note that in Bhagat Raja’s case (Supra), the
amendment of rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960
introduced in July, 1965 laid down a special procedure in
regard to revisions. It required the Central Government to
send copies of the application for revision to all the
impleaded parties including the person to whom a lease had
been granted calling upon them to make such comments as they
might like to make within three months from the date of the
issue of the communication and on receipt of the comments
from any party to send copies thereof to the other parties
calling upon them to make further comments as they might
like to make within one month from the date of the issue of
the communication. It also provided that the revision appli-
cation, the communications containing comments and counter
comments referred to above would constitute the record of
the case. Thus under the amended rule, the party whose
application was rejected got an ample opportunity of showing
to the Central Government by reference not only to the
record which was before the State Government but by refer-
ence to the fresh material as well that the State Government
was misled in its consideration of the matter or that its
decision was based on irrelevant considerations. This is
evident from the following observations made in Bhagat Raja
v. The Union of India & Ors. (supra):
"The old rule 55 was replaced by a new
rule which came into force on 19th July, 1965.
Whereas the old rule directed the Central
Government to consider comments on the
petition of review by the State Government or
other authority only, the new rule is aimed at
calling upon all the parties including the
State Government to make their comments in the
matter and the parties are given the right to
make further comments on those made by the
other or others. In effect, the parties are
given a right to bring forth material which
was not before the State Government. It is
easy to see that an unsuccessful party may
challenge the gram of a lease in favour of
another by pointing out defects or demerits
which did not come to the knowledge of the
State Government. The order in this case does
not even purport to’ show that the comments
and counter comments which were before the
Central Government in this case, had been
considered."
The above observations leave no manner of doubt that it
was in view of the amendment in rule 55 of the Mineral
Concession Rules,
212
1960 that the decision in Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India
& Ors. (supra) was different from Madhya Pradesh Industries
Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) which had been ren-
dered on the unamended rule 55 of the said Rules. In our
opinion, therefore, the observations made in Madhya Pradesh
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) contain a
correct statement of law.
In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in
the third contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
This brings us to the last contention raised by Mr.
Ramamurthi that the writ petition should not have been
dismissed by the High Court in limine in view of the fact
that it contained allegations of mala fides against the
respondents. We are unable to accept this contention. It
has been held time and again by this Court that the High
Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investiga-
tion into the allegations of mala fides if necessary partic-
ulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are not
given in the writ petition. Keeping in view the well estab-
lished rule that the burden of establishing mala fides lies
very heavily on the person who alleges it and considering
all the allegations made by the appellant in regard thereto,
we do not think that they could be considered as sufficient
to establish malus animus. The High Court was, therefore,
not wrong in dismissing the petition in limine on seeing
that a prima facie case requiring investigation had not been
made out.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to
costs.
P.B.R. Appeal
dismissed.
213