JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, Advocate on behalf of petitioner, Sri K.R. Sirohi, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the then District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar dated 31st August, 2005 where under the petitioner was reverted to the next lower grade of his Cadre i.e. in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds including the ground that the impugned order contains absolutely no reason in support of the conclusions arrived at and is therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority, namely, District Judge and accordingly a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why punishment proposed, may not be inflicted. The reply filed by the petitioner has been considered and finally order dated 31st August, 2005 has been passed. There is no infirmity in the order. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Administrative Judge under Rule-7 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976. For ready reference Rule-7 of the aforesaid Rules reads as follows:
7. Appeals.- (1) A persons against whom an order imposing a penalty specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 has been passed by the presiding officer of a subordinate court, other than the Court of District Judge, may file an appeal to the District Judge.
(2) A person against whom an order:
(a) imposing a penalty specified in any of the Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 has been passed by a District Judge; or
(b) of enhancement of punishment has been made by a District Judge in appeal filed under Sub-rule (1) of this rules; may file an appeal to the High Court.
(3) The period during which an appeal may be filed shall be thirty days in the case of an appeal filed under Sub-rule (1), and ninety days in the cases of an appeal filed which the appellant is informed of the order appealed against. The time taken in obtaining the copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation....
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
5. Before adverting merits of the controversy raised on behalf of the parties, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the order passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 31st August, 2005 reverting the petitioner to the next lower grade of his cadre, which reads as follows:
Sh. Ishwar Dass Presently posted as Clerk in the Court of IIIrd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, has been found responsible for the loss of file of case No. 11/92, Chhidda v. State (Under-Section 145 Cr.P.C), from the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, G.B. Nagar. He was duly served with a notice as to why punishment be not imposed upon him. He replies (paper Nos. 51 and 53 respectively) to the same have been considered.
It has been decided that he will be placed In next lower grade of his Cadre- in the scale of 3050-4590/-.
6. It is not in dispute that the reversion to next lower grade is a major penalty. From the order quoted herein above, it is apparent that except for recording his conclusions that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not satisfactory, absolutely no reasons have been mentioned in support thereof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment ; The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and Anr. and and ; Union of India v. M.L Capoor and Ors. has held that reasons are link between the facts and findings recorded. In absence of reasons the findings recorded, are legally not sustainable. This legal situation has further been explained in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India and 1990 (3) J.T. 630; Sri S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, wherein recording of reasons has been held to be the third Principles of Natural Justice. It Is also, settled law that orders are to be judged on reasons recorded therein. Reference ; Mohindra Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commission, New Delhi and Ors.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order falls sought of the requirements of recording reasons for imposing major penalty upon a Government Employee. Therefore, impugned order, on the face of it, cannot be legally sustained.
8. It is true that an statutory appeal against the order passed by the District Judge is provided for under Rule-7 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976. However, in absence of the reasons having been recorded in the order impugned in the present writ petition, filing of appeal will be an empty formality as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments Para-4 & 5; Mahablr Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. ; Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors. ; Ajantha Industries and Ors. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and Ors. and ; Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa and Ors.
9. Under Rule-5 (4) of the Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976 provided for action to be taken on the receipt of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority, which reads as follows:
5. Procedure In respect of major punishments.-...
(4) After the inquiry against a Government servant has been completed and after the punishing authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiring officer prepared under Sub-rule (1) together with the recommendation if any, in regard to punishment, made by the officer conducting the inquiry and be given a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit a particular date which affords him reasonable time, such representation as he may be to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the inquiry:
Provided that, if for sufficient reasons, the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the report of the inquiring officer above mentioned; the point or points of such disagreement together with a brief statement in the grounds there of shall also be communicated to the Government servant charged.
10. Under the said Sub-rule-4 opportunity has been afforded to the delinquent employee to file a representation against the proposed punishment. Filing of such representation would be rendered illusornery, if the disciplinary authority while inflicting punishment, does not record reasons for inflicting the major punishment after considering the reply of the employee.
11. In the facts and circumstances the case as noticed herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that substantial justice would be done if the order passed by the District Judge reverting the petitioner to the next lower grade of his cadre dated 31st August, 2005 is quashed and the District Judge is required to pass a fresh order supported by cogent reasons after taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice.
12. It is, therefore, provided that the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar shall pass a fresh order supported by such cogent reasons after taking into consideration explanation furnished by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice, preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the District Judge. In the meantime petitioner shall be restored back to the original post, however, payment of difference of salary for the period between the date of impugned order and the order he is restored back on the post, shall be subject to the order passed by the District Judge afresh.
13. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the observations made herein above.