ANNAPURNA MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the widow and the son of deceased teacher. It is specific case of the petitioners that Late Sasanka Sekhar Mukhapadhyay , the husband and the father of the petitioners No.1 and 2 respectively was appointed as a Primary School teacher on 1.12.1961 and the said service was confirmed by the District Inspector of School (Primary Education) Howrah on 4.01.1980. From 13.08.1980, the said teacher became a mental patient and was medically unfit to continue his duties and thereafter applied for medical leave before the concerned authority.

(2.) AFTER recovery from mental imbalance, the said teacher applied to the chairman, Howrah District Primary School Council to resume his duties on 22.03.1999. A Sub-Inspector of School intimated the chairman that there is no service record of the said teacher in the office but it has been observed that the said teacher was found working up to the month of August, 1980 and requested the chairman, Howrah District Primary School Council to take necessary decision in this regard. The chariman showed inability to consider the said case in view of a long absence of 20 years of the said teacher. Ultimately, the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal rejected the prayer of the said teacher on 5th Janurary 2000, by which he intended to resume his duties by the State Government. Thereafter, several representations were made by the said teacher for reconsideration but those representations were not considered and disposed of by the authorities. Ultimately, the said teacher died on 05.02.2002.

(3.) BY the impugned memo, the said prayer is turned down without assigning any reason. It is imperative on the part of the Administrative Authority to pass speaking order as the failure thereof breaches the principle of natural justice in view of the division bench judgement of this court in case of Prafulla Kumar Singh Vs. Dr. Sachidananda Sarkar reported in (2011) 3 WBLR 590 (CAL) where the division bench held: On a bare reading of the impugned order, it appears that no reason is assigned as to why the contempt application was dismissed save and except a finding that there has been no contempt. The said order is hit by principle of speaking order. The speaking order principle has already settled its root. Reference is made to this effect:- It is the basic principle of law that every order passed by any administrative body or any quasi judicial body and/or even by the judicial body must disclose the reason of the order so that the person concerned who is affected thereby may approach the higher forum and/or higher Court assailing the decision thereof. In the case Chairman, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetrya Gramin Bank v. jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors., reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240, the Court held that reason must be given by the appellate or revisional authority even when affirming the impugned decision. Reliance was placed in that case, the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem v. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008)3 SCC 469, M.P. Industries Limited v. Union of India, reported in AIR 196 SC 671 and Seamen Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v. Union of India, reported in (1976)2 SCC 981. In that case the court explained and discussed the contra decision passed in the case S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 94 by explaining the said decision that in case of affirmation, no reason separately required to be given as held in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) should be read as an observation meaning thereby that order of affirmation need not contain any elaborate reasoning as contained in original order, but it can not be understood to mean that even brief reason need not be given in order of affirmance. The court further explained in that case the earlier case of State of Bikaner and jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Grover, reported in (1995)6 SCC 279, since in the case Prabhu Dayal Grover, (supra), it was observed that for affirmative order there was no necessity of giving any reason to this effect that the observation of the Prabhu Dayal Grover (supra),should be read as that the Appellate Authority should disclose briefly application of mind as without any reason cannot be satisfied. It has been further held at least that brief reason should be given so that one can know that the Appellate Authority has applied his mind.