Court emphasizes necessity of detailed reasoning in disciplinary and appellate orders; sets aside penalties imposed on Rajesh Kumar Tiwari.
In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has quashed the penalty imposed on Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, an Assistant Engineer with the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), citing a lack of reasoned decision-making in the disciplinary and appellate orders. The court, presided over by Justice Anand Sharma, underscored the importance of providing detailed reasons in orders, especially when they affect the livelihood and career prospects of individuals.
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari faced charges related to alleged irregularities in handling scrap materials that purportedly caused financial losses to JVVNL. Despite his defense denying involvement and attributing the irregularities to other staff members, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding one grade increment. This decision was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority without providing substantive reasoning.
The court noted that both the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to adequately consider and address the defense presented by Tiwari. The judgment highlighted that the mere mention of having "considered" the defense without a thorough analysis does not satisfy the requirements of natural justice. It stressed that decisions lacking explicit reasoning are unsustainable in law, as they do not demonstrate active application of mind or fairness in the decision-making process.
Justice Sharma referenced several Supreme Court judgments to illustrate that the term "consider" implies an obligation to actively engage with and evaluate all relevant aspects of a case. The court observed that the absence of clear reasoning in the penalty and appellate orders rendered them vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.
Consequently, the court annulled both the penalty order dated January 3, 2013, and the appellate order dated July 25, 2014, directing JVVNL to provide Tiwari with appropriate relief within 60 days.
This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring that administrative authorities exercise their powers with transparency and accountability.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary and appellate authorities are required to provide reasoned orders reflecting active application of mind while imposing penalties, even in cases involving minor penalties. Orders lacking reasons or analysis of defense raised by the delinquent are unsustainable in law.
Statutory provision(s): Jaipur Discom Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1962; Principles of Natural Justice
