"Harassed To Bits": Patna High Court Sets Aside State's Unreasoned Punishment Order Against Child Development Officer
Setting aside an "unreasoned" punishment order passed by the Special Secretary of the Social Welfare Department against a Child Development Project Officer, the Patna High Court has emphasized the critical need for clear and coherent reasoning in decision-making processes.Justice Mohit Kumar Shah observed, “It is evident from the records, as narrated by the learned counsel for the...
Setting aside an "unreasoned" punishment order passed by the Special Secretary of the Social Welfare Department against a Child Development Project Officer, the Patna High Court has emphasized the critical need for clear and coherent reasoning in decision-making processes.
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah observed, “It is evident from the records, as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and recorded hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs that the present case is a case of no evidence. This Court further finds that the impugned order dated 30.6.2015 is not only cryptic but also an unreasoned order, depicting complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the same has not taken into account the defence put forth by the petitioner, apart from no clear, cogent and succinct reasons, having been furnished by the Respondent No. 3, for coming to a decision warranting infliction of punishment upon the petitioner.”
“It is a trite law that furnishing of clear, cogent and succinct reasons in support of the impugned order, is an indispensable component of a decision making process,” the court added placing reliance on ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India, [(2010) 13 SCC 427].
The above ruling came in a writ petition filed seeking quashing of the order passed by the Special Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
The case in question having a chequered history, began with the initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a show cause reply, and an Inquiry Officer conducted the departmental proceeding, ultimately exonerating the petitioner from any wrongdoing. However, the petitioner contended that despite this exoneration, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment, which included the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the denial of payment for the suspension period, except for the subsistence allowances already disbursed. The petitioner's appeal against this decision was subsequently dismissed.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues outlined above, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the impugned order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the respondent authorities cease any further proceedings in the matter, inasmuch as the petitioner has already been "harassed to bits" since the year 2010.
Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Subodh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Counsel/s For the Respondent/s: Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, AC to SC-18
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 119
Case Title: Smt. Abha Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar and Others
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17189 of 2015