TAPOBANTA MATARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellate order passed by Collector, Sambalpur in respect of the order placing petitioner under suspension dated 7-4-1991 passed under the provisions of Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short, the 'Act'), and the Rules made thereunder is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application. Petitioner's primary stand in the appeal was that the procedure relating to suspension has not been followed, and therefore, the same was a nullity. The appeal was numbered as G.P. Appeal No. 1 of 1992, and the same was disposed of by the Collector with the following order:

(2.) Power of suspension flows from rule 216(b) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 (in short, the 'Rules'). Under section 133 of the Act, appeal is provided against any order or direction passed or issued by the Grama Panchayat under the provisions of the Act, Rules or Bye-law. The appeal lies to the Sub-divisional Officer/Sub-Collector. In case any person is aggrieved by an order of the Sub-divisional Officer/Sub-Collector, a further appeal to the Collector is provided. The first appellate authority is empowered to vary, set aside or confirm the impugned order or direction. Finality is attached, to the appellate order (be it of the first appellate or second appellate one), in terms of sub-section (5) of section 133 of the Act. Sec. 134 provides that no order or direction referred to in section 133 cannot be questioned in any manner or by any authority other than the authority provided in the latter provision. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Collector was disposed of on the ground that the petitioner did not press the appeal. In the second appeal before the Collector, a specific stand was taken that it was not a fact that the appeal was not pressed and the order of suspension was also challenged on merits. It appears from the order of the Collector that he thought that the only point for discussion related to the question whether the Sarpanch or Grama Panchayat was competent to pass the order of suspension. He felt that since there was no other point, he found no merit in allowing the case to continue. He did not consider the specific case of the petitioner that the order of suspension was without any authority of law, and did not record any finding on the question of competence.

(3.) The Collector after considering the case of the petitioner was required to record reasons and dispose of the appeal. Since no reasons have been indicated, we find it difficult to sustain the order. Reasons are the measuring rods to find out whether there was application of mind. In the absence of it, it is difficult to find out the basis on which the order was based. It is the stand of the opposite parties that indication of reason is not a statutory requirement. The stand is indefensible. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based, and the actual conclusions. The giving of reasons in one of the fundamentals of good administration (per Lord Deaning in Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union : (1971) 1 All ER 1148). The requirement of furnishing reason is a shackle on acting arbitrarily and whimsically. When assailed in Courts, from the reasons given it would be adjudged if the authority has acted judicially and fairly or otherwise, and if the reasons are germane and relevant or otherwise. The necessity to record reasons becomes imperative when finality is attached to the order, as is the case at hand. In the circumstances, we set aside the second appellate order passed by the Collector, Sambalpur vide Annexure-3 and direct him to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh.