PAWAN PRAJAPATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this petition is "whether any Administrative action or order is required to be supported by reasons? Whether the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority is supposed to pass a speaking order before taking any action against an employee?"

(2.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as a Constable in Border Security Force (for short 'BSF') and he was granted 8 days casual leave from 27/10/2003 to 4/11/2003 but he over-stayed for 77 days and he rejoined his services on 20/1/2004. Counsel submits that the reason for his absence was the ailments of his parents. Counsel submits that a chargesheet was served upon him on 1/3/2004 but prior to issuance of chargesheet, the proceedings of recording evidence was conducted on 11/2/2004, 12/2/2004 and 16/2/2004 in contravention to the statutory provisions contained under Rules 48 of the Boarder Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules of 1969'). Counsel submits that as per the Rule 44 of the Rules of 1969, it was mandatory for the authorities to first serve the chargesheet and, thereafter, record the evidence but here in the instant case, the evidence was recorded first and chargesheet was served at the later stage. Counsel submits that without considering the defence taken by the petitioner, the respondents have passed the order impugned on 8/3/2004 without passing any speaking or reasoned order. Counsel submits that there was absolutely no application of mind on part of the Summary Security Force Court. Counsel submits that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was also dismissed summarily without assigning any reasons vide impugned order dtd. 31/8/2004. Counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were supposed to appreciate the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the defence taken by the petitioner, but here in the instant case, there was no application of mind on the part of both the authorities which has resulted in violation of the principle of natural justice. Counsel further submits that the reasons for petitioner's absence were explained to the authorities and the reason was that grandfather of the petitioner died and the presence of the petitioner was required for performing the necessary rituals and, thereafter, the parents of the petitioner fell ill and for taking their care he over-stayed at home. Counsel submits that all these defence were narrated to the authorities but these facts have not been appreciated by the authorities at the time of passing the impugned orders. Counsel submits that it was incumbent upon the authorities to pass a reasoned and speaking order but here in the instant case, this exercise has not been done. He further submits that the order dismissing his appeal was served upon the petitioner at Ajmer, hence, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition in the State of Rajasthan. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-