ANANT RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Beda. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 22.1.1987 alongwith charge sheet and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why an enquiry under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short the Rules of 1961) should not be initiated. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 4.2.1987 with a request to the respondents to supply the material particulars and allow inspection of the relevant documents. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1961. After the completion of the enquiry, under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21, the petitioner was given notice for initiating the proceedings under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1961. The petitioner submitted a reply and by order dated 19.8.1988 the charges against the petitioner were found proved and direction was issued to record the finding under Section 1 (4) proviso of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short the Act' hereinafter). The order of recording finding against the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that after the enquiry being conducted as contemplated under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21 and after the proceedings being taken up under Rule 22, the petitioner has not been supplied with copy of the enquiry report and thus, no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before the order was passed recording the finding under Section 1 (4) and further the order recording the finding does not in any way indicate application of mind of the authority as the order is a non -speaking order. Rule 22 of the Rules of 1961 provides that the State Govt. or the officer or authority referred to in Sub -rule (4) of Rule 20 shall consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Rule 22 of the Rules of 1961 postulates the position after the completion of the enquiry under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21, wherein it has been provided that the State Govt. or the Officer or authority referred to in Sub -rule (4) or Rule 20 shall consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer, afford reasonable opportunity to the person charged and thereafter pass a speaking order as it or he may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. 'Affording reasonable hearing' contemplates that the person should know the findings which have been recorded against him in the enquiry. Unless and until he knows about the findings, he cannot be expected to defend those findings effectively. Annex. 13 is the document whereby the petitioner has asked for the copy of the enquiry report. Annex. 14 is the document whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner may take the certified copy of the enquiry report. This alongwith the allegations made by the petitioner that no enquiry report was given to him of the enquiry conducted under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21, which has not been contradicted, in the return, clearly indicates that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report alter the completion of the enquiry.

(3.) RULE 22 provides that the State Govt. or the officer or authority mentioned therein shall pass an order as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case, that includes passing of an order exonerating the petitioner from all the findings arrived at in an enquiry. If an adverse order is passed against the Panch or Up -Sarpanch, as the case may be, it will entail a punishment of debarring him from contesting the election for five years period Under Section 17(4)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The punishment proved is very serious and grave and, therefore, it is expected of the State Govt. or the officer concerned to pass a reasoned order, which will indicate the application of mind by the authority. When the statute requires recording of reasons, there is no scope for further enquiry and it has to be recorded. Where requirement of recording reasons has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, it may not be recorded by administrative authority. But even when the statute does not impose such an obligation, it is necessary for a quasi -judicial authority to record reasons, as it is the only visible safeguard against public injustice or arbitrariness, when the civil consequences of administrative action are grave and its effect is highly prejudicial to the interest and right of the parties, there is more a reason to record reason while passing an order. The reasons are the links between the material on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusion. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for arriving at a decision. Only by this way, it can be demonstrated that the decision arrived at is manifestly just and reasonable. This is the most valuable safeguard against any arbitrary exercise of power by adjudicating authority. When the order entails serious consequences of debarring a person to contest election, there is more a reason that order of the administrative authority is speaking order of the administrative authority is speaking order whereby Court can satisfy itself that order is passed after considering all the relevant facts. When the authority has not at all given any reason, this Court is at liberty to come to the conclusion that the authority had no good reason of reaching to the conclusion it had arrived at.