Letters Patent Appeal No. 411 of 2013 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.411 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18838 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary Bihar Rajya Madhaynha Bhojan Yojna Samit-Cum- Director Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Government Of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna Versus 1. Dalit Manav Utthan Sansthan, Having Its Registered Office At 3/85 Patrakarpuram, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Through Its President Tribhuvan Tieari Son Of Vishaw Nath Tiwary Resident Of J-210, Gali No.- 11 J Block, Kartar Nagar, New Delhi 110053 .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 4 21-06-2013
Legal Reasoning
We have heard Counsel for the appellants. I.A. No. 2409 of 2013 has been filed for condoning 177 days delay in preferring the delay. I.A. No. 2410 of 2013 has been filed for stay of the operation of the judgement under appeal. Since we are not inclined to issue notice on merits, we condone the delay and proceed to consider the appeal on merits. No separate orders therefore need to be passed on the stay application. The present appeal arises from the order dated 27.2.2013 allowing CWJC No. 18838 of 2011. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the breach by the respondent of the terms of the agreement was admitted. In that view Patna High Court LPA No.411 of 2013 (4) dt.21-06-2013 2 of the matter absence of any reason in the final order was not relevant. Directions have been given to renew the agreement for the period that the respondent was not permitted to work during the subsistence of the contract. The respondent, a NGO, was given a contract pursuant to an advertisement for running Mid-day Meal for schools located in the urban and semi urban areas of Munger and an MOU dated 18.12.2009 was signed between the parties. Alleging breach of the same a show cause notice was given to the respondent on 9.6.2011. A reply was filed on 11.6.2011 explaining the circumstances under which partial deviation from the conditions incorporated in the MOU had to be made. Learned Single Judge held that giving of a show cause notice was not an empty formality. The cause shown was required to be taken into consideration and should have found reflection in the final order for cancellation. The mere mention of the fact that the cause shown was not satisfactory will not suffice. We approve of the aforesaid observation that giving a show cause notice is not an empty formality. Natural justice does not stop at the giving of show cause notice. The consideration of the reply and passing of a reasoned order is also an essential facet of principle of natural justice. Reason ensures that the decision maker stays within the boundaries of its power and does not abuse or misuse the same and take into consideration irrelevant materials. It gives insight into the mind of the decision maker that he has considered all relevant aspects and arrived at a decision in accordance with law. Reasons have rightly been called heart and soul of an order. If the authorities find it difficult to reject the cause shown it would be very convenient for them to arbitrarily only state in a single word that “it was unsatisfactory”. Even if the respondent admitted the breach but gave an explanation for it there had to be application of mind whether the Patna High Court LPA No.411 of 2013 (4) dt.21-06-2013 3 explanation was acceptable or unacceptable and if it was unacceptable why it was so. In (2005) 12 SCC 256 (Raj Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Bihar) it was held at paragraph 5 as follows:- the that relates therein cannot be passed unless 5. Without going into other issues raised, we are of the view impugned order of the respondent authority imposing punishment on the appellant cannot be sustained. Even if we assume that Rule 55-A which pertains to minor punishment was applicable and not Rule 55 which to major punishments, nevertheless Rule 55-A requires that the punishment prescribed the representation made pursuant the show-cause notice, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show-cause notice were, in fact, considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside. to The discussion is very lucid in (2010) 13 SCC 427 (Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India) holding at paragraph 36 and 37 as follows:- “36. The appellant gave a reply to the show-cause notice but in the order of the third respondent by which registration certificate of the appellant was cancelled, no reference was made to the reply of the appellant, except saying that it is not satisfactory. The cancellation order is totally a non-speaking one……………..” “37. Therefore, the bias of the third respondent which was latent in the show-cause notice became patent in the order of cancellation of the registration certificate. The cancellation order quotes the show-cause notice and is a non-speaking one and is virtually no order in the eye of the law. Since the same order is an appealable one it is incumbent on the third respondent to give adequate reasons.” Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly acknowledges that Patna High Court LPA No.411 of 2013 (4) dt.21-06-2013 4 he has not been instructed if any fresh order in pursuance of the penultimate paragraph of the appellate order has been passed. The is therefore premature and merits no consideration at this stage.
Decision
The appeal is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J) Snkumar/-