Quasi-Judicial Authority Can’t Pass Non-Speaking Orders: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Punishment Imposed On Constable Allegedly Found Intoxicated On Duty

Regarding the disciplinary action taken against a Police constable who was allegedly intoxicated while on duty, the Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the Disciplinary and Appellate authority cannot do so without appreciating the evidence and assigning proper reasons.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand sitting at the Jaipur Bench opined that the impugned orders were ‘totally non-speaking orders’ and the procedure envisaged in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 were not taken into account at the stage of enquiry.

“…The Disciplinary Authority has not recorded reasons and has not even considered the statement as well as plea taken by the petitioner in his explanation filed after receiving the copy of the chargesheet. Therefore, order impugned is totally non-speaking order and the enquiry in question is also conducted without following the procedure laid down in the CCA Rules, in which, the petitioner was found to be guilty of wandering in the Police Line campus after consuming liquor…”, the court remarked.

While reaching the above conclusion, the court made a reference to the apex court’s decision in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (UOI) (1990) 4 SCC 595 to buttress the proposition that quasi-judicial authorities are required to pass a speaking order.

“What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage”, the apex court had noted in paragraph 38 of the said order.

The High Court iterated that ‘one-line conclusions’ are not sufficient to comply with the requirement of the principles of natural justice as well as Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958. Rule 14 contemplates the nature of penalties imposed on erring officials and the guidelines that must be followed while doing so. As per the High Court, the discretionary powers accorded to the Disciplinary authority to determine the gravity and nature of wrongful conduct under Rule 14 are not all-encompassing.

“…The discretion of the punishing authority should be sound, legal, regular, guided by the law and governed by Rule. It should not be arbitrary, vague and forceful and must not be governed by rumours. The Rule provides the “good and sufficient reasons” should be recorded on the basis of which a penalty has been imposed. When the Disciplinary Authority adopts a casual approach while passing a punishment order, it does not amount to sufficient compliance of this provision”, the High Court remarked in the order.

“There is no doubt that the Enquiry Officer is not bound by the strict rules of law of evidence, but the report of the Enquiry Officer must be a reasoned one and failure to do so renders the order of punishment illegal”, the court further added while mentioning that such orders need not be as elaborate as a court order, as laid down in S.N. Mukherjee.

Citing the above reasons, the court added that the order should contain reasons that point towards the application of mind by the competent authority to the contents of evidence and the submissions made by the delinquent officials.

While partly allowing the writ petition, the court set aside the orders of the Superintendent of Police (Disciplinary Authority) and Inspector General of Police (Appellate Authority). The respondent authorities have also been given the liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Facts of the Case

On 17.12.2010, the constable was found to be injured in a drunken state by falling down in the Police Line Campus. The respondent authorities alleged that the petitioner indulged in such misconduct while he was a part of the discipline force, violating Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The petitioner contended that he was suffering from a mental disease and fell down on the date of the incident due to the impact of the medications he was taking.

Chargesheet was served on him for such misconduct under Rule 17 of the 1958 Rules and he was penalised in 2011 by withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect. The punishment was mentioned in a one-line order by the Superintendent of Police who found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The appeal proceedings before the Inspector General of Police also culminated in a similar manner, contrary to Rule 30 (Consideration of Appeals) of the 1958 Rules. These two orders were challenged by the petitioner before the High Court for judicial review of the perverse orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Case Title: Jasram Jat v. Inspector General of Police & Ors

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2012

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Raj)

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment