JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma and Aloke Chakrabarti, JJ
1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the only consideration required is challenge in the present writ petition is order dated 6.9.1989 at annexure No. 27 to the writ petition whereby upon exercise of power of review the respondents have imposed a penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service.
2. The relevant brief facts are that in respect of petitioner there was a disciplinary proceeding initiated by issuance of a charge-sheet dated 23.11.1987 at annexure No. 17 to the writ petition after written statement of defence was filed by the petitioner and on enquiry by the enquiry officer report dated 11.3.1988 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Disciplinary authority by his order dated 6/7.6.1988 (Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition) awarded major penalty of lowering of pay at two stages as provided in Clause (e) of Regulation- 4 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees, (Disciplinary & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause dated 5.12.1988 as to why enhanced penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon the petitioner. In response to said notice, the petitioner submitted his reply by his letter, a copy whereof has been annexed as annexure No. 26 to the writ petition. Thereafter the respondents passed the impugned order dated 6.9.1989 imposing the penalty of dismissal upon exercise of power of review.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order, though was passed in exercise of power of review provided under the Regulation-18 of the said Disciplinary & Appeal Regulations, but the same is liable to be quashed as no reason has been given nor any effective consideration of the matter is available from the impugned order.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents-employer contended that detailed reason has been given in the notice to show cause making it clear as to why power of review was being exercised and it is stated by the respondents that in such circumstances, the impugned order need not be a reasoned order. The said order is a valid and proper one particularly when the said order itself indicates application of mind by the respondents. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that at the stage of review it is sufficient when application of mind of the concerned authority is there and reason for exercise of the power of review has been provided in the show cause notice,
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that thought the writ petition is having large volume but the only question to be considered by us is as to whether the impugned order passed by the reviewing authority at annexure No. 27 to the writ petition is liable to be set-aside as it did not provide reasons. The power of review in respect of the present employee is contained in Regulation-18 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees, (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation') which runs as follows :
"18. Review:-Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such order thereon as it may deem fit. Provided that-
(i) If any enhance penalty, which the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose, is a major penalty specified in Clauses (e), (f), (g) or (h) of Regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided under Regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper;
(ii) if the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of Regulation-6, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation if any submitted by the officer employee."
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the law decided in the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmad, reported in A.I.R. 1979 SC 1022, Dr. S.S. Ahluwalia v. C.B. Pant University, reported in 1990 A.W.C. 1544, Ramakant Misra v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1982 SC 1552, State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw, reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC 2205 and the case of Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors., reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 1053.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order at annexure No. 27 to the writ petition refusing relief to the petitioner is illegal as no reason was assigned by the authority and the law requires every administrative authority to assign reasons. The cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner were in support of the contention that the administrative authorities are required to assign reasons. Strong reliance was placed on the observations made in the case of State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw (supra), which runs as follows :
"10. ** ** ** **The appellate authority being final authority on facts is enjoined and incumbent upon it to appreciate the evidence; consider the reasoning of the primary authority and assign its own reasons as to why he disagrees with the reasons and findings of the primary authority. Unless adequate reasons are given, merely because it is an appellate authority, it can not brush aside the reasoning or findings recorded by the primary authority."
8. But the facts involved in the aforesaid case were that the appellate authority reversed the findings of the trial authority and in such background aforesaid observations was made.
9. The law in this connection has also been decided in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors. v. Prabhu Dayal Grover, reported in J.T. 1995 (7) SC 207, wherein the provision of the concerned service Regulations were considered and it was held that "when the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to reappraise the evidence to arrive at the same findings."
10. We find that the law has also been considered in this respect in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 and the relevant finding therein runs as follows :
"The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
11. After considering the aforesaid view, we are of the opinion that the law in this respect has already been settled that giving of reasons is an essential element of orders of administrative authority and right to reason is indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Even the appellate authority when reverses the order of trial authority, is required to give sufficient reasons showing the reasons of reversing the earlier order. But, in case the appellate authority or any subsequent authority concures with the findings of the order impugned before it and it affirms the said order, it need not give separate reasons.
12. In the present case show cause notice had been issued giving reasons as to why power of review was being proposed to be exercised. It appears that the petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice and a copy of the said reply has been annexed at annexure No. 26 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said reply indicates that the petitioner has taken various objections in his reply as regards review proposing imposition of penalty of dismissal which means penalty was being enhanced.
13. The impugned order at annexure No. 27 of the writ petition does not clearly give the reasons dealing with the said objections taken in the reply filed by the petitioner to show cause notice in the review proceeding. As the reviewing authority was enhancing the penalty the law requires consideration of the grounds in reply and giving reasons in the final order in such cases. Had there been concurrence as regards finding and penalty, detailed reasons would not have been required. But, in the present case, as enhancement of penalty has been resulted, the reviewing authority was required to give reasons after dealing with the contentions of the petitioner made in his reply to show cause notice.
14. In the absence of such reasons, we are of the opinion that requirement of law has not been satisfied and the order is liable to be quashed. The writ petition Is, therefore, allowed.. The impugned order dated 6.9.1989 at annexure No. 27 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The reviewing authority is to decide the review afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With regard to relief of back wages and other consequential reliefs, we direct that the same be decided subject to final decision in the review proceeding.