Dhrub Narayan Jha v. Madhubani Kshetriya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1235 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6898 of 2002 ====================================================== Dhrub Narayan Jha son of Late Bindeshwar Jha, Resident of VillageSibbipatti, P.S. Rajnagar, District- Madhubani. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
Madhubani Kshetriya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman and Ors 2.
The Board of Directors Appellate Authority Madhubani Kshetriya Gramin Bank Parishad Bazar Madhuba 3.
The Chairman, Parishad Bazar Madhubani, P.S. Madhubani Sadar, DistrictMadhubani. 4.
The Disciplinary Authority, Parishad Bazar Madhubani, P.S.- Madhubani Sadar, District- Madhubani.
5.
Madhubani Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raghopur Baraha Branch through its Manager, P.S. Bisfi Patruna, D ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.,Prabhakar Jha, Advocate Mr. Harimohan Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 13-10-2022 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. In the instant appeal, appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6898 of 2002.
2/6
3. The appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on 02.05.2000 and it was affirmed by the appellate authority on 30.04.2002. Still aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, appellant invoked remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court in filing C.W.J.C. No. 6898 of 2002 and it was decided against appellant on 02.07.2018. Hence the present L.P.A. 1235 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant restricted his argument for the time being that appellate authority's order dated 30.04.2002 is not a speaking order with reference to memorandum of appeal dated 23.05.2000. Appellate authority's order reads as under:
" मधुबननी क्षेतनीय गग्रामनीण बक प्रधग्रान कग्रायग्रार्यालय, पररिषद बग्राजग्रारि,मधुबननी तग्रारि : गग्रामनीण बक, दरिभग्राष - 06276 23414, फफैक्स - 06276 24194 पतग्रात्रांक:अ0 स0:आदक्षेश: 24:2002:04: सत्रां०. 14 ददनग्रात्रांक : 30.04.2002 आदक्षेश शनी धुव नग्रारिग्रायण झग्रा, शग्राखग्रा पदग्राधधकग्रारिनी, मधुबननी क्षेतनीय गग्रामनीण बक कको अनधुशग्रासदनक प्रग्राधधकग्रारि कक्षे दग्रारिग्रा प्रधग्रान कग्रायग्रार्यालय पत अ0 स0 / आदक्षेश / 22 / 05 / 2000 / सत्रां0 03 ददनग्रात्रांक 2 मई 2000 सक्षे दणणण्डित दकयग्रा गयग्रा थग्रा । शनी झग्रा नक्षे उक्त आदक्षेश कक्षे दवरूद्ध बक कक्षे अपनीलक्षेट अथकोररिटनी (दनदक्षेशक मणण्डिल) कक्षे समक अपनील दकयग्रा थग्रा । अपनीलक्षेट अथकोररिटनी कक्षे दग्रारिग्रा उनकक्षे अपनील परि ददनग्रात्रांक 13.02.2002 कको दवचग्रारि दकयग्रा गयग्रा ।
3/6 अपनीलक्षेट अथकोररिटनी नक्षे शनी झग्रा कक्षे अपनील परि दवचग्रारि कक्षे क्रम म उनकक्षे उपरि लगग्रायक्षे गयक्षे आरिकोपप, जग्राजाँच सम्बणनधत कग्रागजग्रात, जग्राजाँच पदग्राधधकग्रारिनी कक्षे प्रदतवक्षेदन, अनधुशग्रासदनक प्रग्राधधकग्रारि कक्षे दनणर्याय, उनकग्रा दपछलग्रा असत्रांगत व्यवहग्रारि परि पदणर्या दवचग्रारिकोपरिग्रानत पग्रायग्रा दक शनी झग्रा कक्षे दग्रारिग्रा शग्राखग्रा रिग्राघकोपधुरि बरिहग्रा म अनक्षेक प्रकग्रारि कग्रा कदग्राचग्रारि दकयग्रा गयग्रा धजसम बक रिग्रादश कग्रा गबन / कपट एवत्रां बक कग्रागजग्रातप कको गग्रायब / नष्ट करिनग्रा भनी शग्रादमल हफै, धजससक्षे बक कको आधथर्याक कदत हई औरि बक कग्रा छदव धददमल हआ । शनी झग्रा कको जग्राजाँच कग्रायर्यावग्राहनी कक्षे ददौरिग्रान बचग्राव हक्षेतधु समधुदचत अवसरि प्रदग्रान दकयग्रा गयग्रा थग्रा। उनकक्षे अनधुसग्रारि ऐसक्षे अधधकग्रारिनी कग्रा बक सक्षेवग्रा म बनग्रा रिहनग्रा अवग्रात्रांछननीय हफै । अतएव अनधुशग्रासदनक प्रग्राधधकग्रारि दग्रारिग्रा पग्राररित दणण्डि "बक सक्षेवग्रा सक्षे हटग्रायग्रा जग्रानग्रा जको भदवष्य कक्षे दनयकोजन कक्षे धलयक्षे दनरिहरग्रार्या नहनी हकोगग्रा" बरिकरिग्रारि रिखग्रा गयग्रा । उनकक्षे कग्रारिण बक कको हई आधथर्याक कदत कक्षे धलयक्षे उनकक्षे दवरूद्ध दवधध सम्मत कग्रारिर्यावग्राई ककी जग्राय । प्रक्षेदषत, शनी धुव नग्रारिग्रायण झग्रा, बक ककॉलकोननी, पधुरिग्राननी चटनी, शत्रांकरि चदौक कक्षे नजदनीक, मधुबननी (आरि.
एन.
5. Prima facie the appellate authority has not considered each of the contentions stated in the memorandum of appeal dated 23.05.2000. It was bounden duty of the appellate authority to examine each of the contentions raised by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal. Apex Court in the case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 held that appellate authority's order must be reasoned and speaking order. Further in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, Para 47 elaborately
4/6 considered as how the judicial, quasi-judicial and other orders should be. Para 47 reads as under:
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
5/6 (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".
6. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, order of the appellate authority dated 30.04.2002 and learned Single Judge order dated 02.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6898 of 2002 stand set aside. Matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider the appellant's memorandum of
6/6 appeal dated 23.05.2000 afresh in the light of principles laid down in the Apex Court decisions cited supra.
7. Appellate authority is hereby directed to decide appellant's appeal afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the decision to the appellant. Appellate authority is also hereby directed to take note of Regulation No. 77 - Repeal and Savings of the Regulation called the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Rajiv Roy, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 19.10.2022 Transmission Date