The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the respondents wherein the petitioner has been made to lose his lien over the post on the ground that he was absent for duty from 28.04.2007 onwards.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as a Junior Assistant with the respondents from 01.12.2004. When an order of transfer was issued on 26.04.2007, the petitioner gave a representation to retain him at Chennai instead of Namakkal Branch on the ground of his ill health. However, the said request was not considered and under those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by making representation.
3.Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation and the said representation was rejected by the respondents. However, inspite of the said rejection order, the petitioner has not chosen to join the duty and hence the impugned order was passed on 28.02.2008 whereby making the petitioner to lose his lien over the post. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent who has also dismissed the appeal.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been liable to be set aside since their violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as without even upholding an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case they have been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the power under Regulation No.22(15) of Repco Bank, Clerical and Sub-ordinate Staff Service Regulation, 1994 cannot be exercised without conducting an enquiry and giving a finding that the petitioner was deliberately absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that when various factual and legal grounds have been raised by way of representations, the first respondent has simply rejected the appeal without even assigning any reasons and without even communicating the order. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent also will have to be setaside for non application of mind.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the power under Regulation No.22(15) of Repco Bank, Clerical and Sub-ordinate Staff Service Regulation, 1994 is automatic and therefore, the question of conducting an enquiry or issuing show cause notice presiding the order forfeiting the benefit of the petitioner over the post does not arise. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that inasmuch as the first respondent is confirming the order of the second respondent there is no necessity for giving reasons for dismissing the appeal.
6.It is seen that the petitioner has preferred an appeal raising various grounds before the first respondent challenging the order passed by the second respondent among other grounds. The petitioner has also raised the plea that he has not been heard and the second respondent has passed the impugned order without even affording an opportunity and without conducting an enquiry. Therefore, the question as to whether the regulation made upon by the respondents has to impose after following the procedure or the same is automatic has to be considered by the first respondent. Further more certain factual aspects have also been placed before the first respondent. A reading of the order passed on 14.05.2008 would indicate that the order has been passed on a total non application of mind in violations of the principles of natural justice. A reasoned order is a basic right of a person. When a power is conferred on a authority and when adjudication is sought to be made by the said authority proper reasons will have to be assigned for allowing or rejecting the appeal. The present case on hand, no such procedure had been adopted. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be setaside.
7.Further, it is seen that the first respondent has not passed any independent and separate order but only directed the General Manager to inform the petitioner that the appeal is rejected, such a procedure is not permissible in law. The first respondent being the competent authority ought to have passed a reasoned order. The petitioner is entitled to know the reasons for rejecting his appeal. In the judgment reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 [RANI LAKSHMI BAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK vs. JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellate authority has to give brief reasons in support of his decision. Similarly, in STATE OF UTTARANCHAL vs. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI reported in (2008) 11 SCC 205, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"8.Now, let us see the impugned order passed by the High Court, which reads as under:
"I have perused the order dated 27.05.2005 passed by respondent 2 and I do not find any illegality in the order so as to interfere under Article 226
/227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed."
9.In view of the specific stand taken by the Department in the affidavit which we have referred to above, the cryptic order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. v. Battan. About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal rao Pritirao Chawan the desirability of a speaking order was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons has been judicially recognised as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh.
10.In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar this Court has held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless."
8.Hence taking into consideration of the above said legal principles this Court is of the view that the order passed in the appeal is liable to be set aside.
9.Accordingly, the order dated 14.05.2008 is hereby setaside and the first respondent is directed to consider the appeal petition filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.