High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Both the counsel have been heard at length and with the consent of parties, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself. District

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari, Harraiyasatgharwa, Balrampur where certain complaints were made against him by one Smt. Lalita Devi on 16.04.2024 on I.G.R.S. Portal stating that the petitioner was responsible for granting benefit of the Chief Minister Residential House Scheme to non-deserving persons and also persons who were not eligible for the said benefits.

4. It seems that to verify the veracity of the allegations mainly in the complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer who submitted his report stating that the complaints are verified and prima facie the charges seems to be correct. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.04.2024 stating that he had extended the benefit of the Chief Minister Residential House Scheme to one Maroof who was living with his parents and already had four rooms and pakka house and similar was the case with regard to one Chandram and Sri Ibrahim and accordingly the petitioner was asked to respond to the aforesaid allegations.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted his reply on 14.10.2024 denying the allegations. The District Development Officer by means of impugned order dated 30.01.2025 held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him in the show cause notice and has ordered recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the petitioner on account of the loss caused to the State Exchequer due to misuse of the discretion by the petitioner.

6. In the impugned order, the details of the charges leveled against the petitioner has been dealt in detail and in only one line it has been stated that the reply of the petitioner has been found to be unsatisfactory and consequently he has been saddled with the order of recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that considering the fact that petitioner has denied the allegations, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have duly considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and recorded the reasons for disagreement to the defense taken by the petitioner. He has submitted that merely by stating that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory would not suffice the rules of principles of natural justice inasmuch as giving reasons for rejection of the defense of the petitioner is an integral aspect of principle of natural justice and on this account the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and submitted that due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceeding a show cause notice was given to him and it is only after receiving the response from the petitioner that the impugned order of recovery dated 30.01.2025 has been passed by the Block Development Officer. He has further submitted that the recovery is a mode of punishment prescribed under Rule 3 and consequently there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

8. I have heard rival contention and perused the record.

9. It is noticed that the petitioner while posted on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari was responsible for making a list for the beneficiaries to be extended the benefit of the Chief Minister Residential House Scheme. It seems that certain persons were included in the list who already have Pakka construction and accordingly such persons would not be eligible for being extended the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. The charges levelled against the petitioner was that he has illegally and arbitrarily extended the benefit to certain persons who were not entitled for the benefit of the same and consequently the money of the exchequer has gone to persons who were not entitled to receive the same.

10. It is in this regard that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 10.04.2024 to which the petitioner had filed his reply denied his allegations on 14.10.2024 and by means of order dated 30.01.2025 the reply of the petitioner has been found to be unsatisfactory and he has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-, failing which appropriate orders for recovery shall be passed against him. It is noticed that the reply of the petitioner has been rejected by merely stating that the same has been found to be unsatisfactory.

11. In order to consider aforesaid aspect, it has to be considered as to whether giving reasons is essential or not. The Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 594, has held that giving of reasons is a part of natural justice and it is the reasons which disclose the mind of the authority who is taken the decision. In order to indicate that there has been application of mind the said order should contain reasons before taken such a decision.The Court has held as under :- "39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision."

12. It is well settled that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 as under : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].

32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."

13. This Court finds that the arguments of the petitioner are justified inasmuch as it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer / disciplinary authority to have given reasons for his disagreement and for finding the reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, it is the reasons which are heart- beat of any order and which discloses the application of mind of the authority passing the said order. It is the reasons which would indicate as to whether the authority has taken into consideration the relevant consideration while arriving at his decisions and in absence of any reasons the order itself is illegal and arbitrary.

14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 being bereft of reasons, illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 to pass afresh order in accordance with law. Let the fresh exercise be taken expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks form the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

15. With the aforesaid observations / orders, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Both the counsel have been heard at length and with the consent of parties, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself. District

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari, Harraiyasatgharwa, Balrampur where certain complaints were made against him by one Smt. Lalita Devi on 16.04.2024 on I.G.R.S. Portal stating that the petitioner was responsible for granting benefit of the Chief Minister Residential House Scheme to non-deserving persons and also persons who were not eligible for the said benefits.

4. It seems that to verify the veracity of the allegations mainly in the complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer who submitted his report stating that the complaints are verified and prima facie the charges seems to be correct. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.04.2024 stating that he had extended the benefit of the Chief Minister Residential House Scheme to one Maroof who was living with his parents and already had four rooms and pakka house and similar was the case with regard to one Chandram and Sri Ibrahim and accordingly the petitioner was asked to respond to the aforesaid allegations.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted his reply on 14.10.2024 denying the allegations. The District Development Officer by means of impugned order dated 30.01.2025 held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him in the show cause notice and has ordered recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the petitioner on account of the loss caused to the State Exchequer due to misuse of the discretion by the petitioner.

6. In the impugned order, the details of the charges leveled against the petitioner has been dealt in detail and in only one line it has been stated that the reply of the petitioner has been found to be unsatisfactory and consequently he has been saddled with the order of recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that considering the fact that petitioner has denied the allegations, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have duly considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and recorded the reasons for disagreement to the defense taken by the petitioner. He has submitted that merely by stating that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory would not suffice the rules of principles of natural justice inasmuch as giving reasons for rejection of the defense of the petitioner is an integral aspect of principle of natural justice and on this account the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and submitted that due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceeding a show cause notice was given to him and it is only after receiving the response from the petitioner that the impugned order of recovery dated 30.01.2025 has been passed by the Block Development Officer. He has further submitted that the recovery is a mode of punishment prescribed under Rule 3 and consequently there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

8. I have heard rival contention and perused the record.

9. It is noticed that the petitioner while posted on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari was responsible for making a list for the beneficiaries to be extended the benefit of the Chief Minister Residential House Scheme. It seems that certain persons were included in the list who already have Pakka construction and accordingly such persons would not be eligible for being extended the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. The charges levelled against the petitioner was that he has illegally and arbitrarily extended the benefit to certain persons who were not entitled for the benefit of the same and consequently the money of the exchequer has gone to persons who were not entitled to receive the same.

10. It is in this regard that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 10.04.2024 to which the petitioner had filed his reply denied his allegations on 14.10.2024 and by means of order dated 30.01.2025 the reply of the petitioner has been found to be unsatisfactory and he has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-, failing which appropriate orders for recovery shall be passed against him. It is noticed that the reply of the petitioner has been rejected by merely stating that the same has been found to be unsatisfactory.

11. In order to consider aforesaid aspect, it has to be considered as to whether giving reasons is essential or not. The Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 594, has held that giving of reasons is a part of natural justice and it is the reasons which disclose the mind of the authority who is taken the decision. In order to indicate that there has been application of mind the said order should contain reasons before taken such a decision.The Court has held as under :- "39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision."

12. It is well settled that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 as under : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].

32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."

13. This Court finds that the arguments of the petitioner are justified inasmuch as it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer / disciplinary authority to have given reasons for his disagreement and for finding the reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, it is the reasons which are heart- beat of any order and which discloses the application of mind of the authority passing the said order. It is the reasons which would indicate as to whether the authority has taken into consideration the relevant consideration while arriving at his decisions and in absence of any reasons the order itself is illegal and arbitrary.

14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 being bereft of reasons, illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 to pass afresh order in accordance with law. Let the fresh exercise be taken expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks form the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

15. With the aforesaid observations / orders, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench