1986 (8) TMI 418 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court stresses transparency in judicial decisions, emphasizes need for reasoned orders

Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf Versus New Education Institute and Others

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and directing it to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law, after ... Whether a court while hearing writ petitions is under an obligation to pass a speaking order? Held that:- The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed on 8th October, 1984 is hereby set aside. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. This well-settled principle will undoubtedly apply to orders made by a court in disposing of writ applications. The court below is directed to dispose of the said writ petition in accordance with law after giving hearing to the parties and by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the records by the court below. Issues Involved:1. Obligation to pass a speaking order in writ petitions.2. Legality of the reversion of the petitioner from the position of Principal.3. Conduct and fairness of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner.4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the enquiry process.5. Validity of the High Court's rejection of the writ petitions without recording reasons.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Obligation to Pass a Speaking Order in Writ Petitions:The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether a court, while hearing writ petitions, is obligated to pass a speaking order, i.e., an order that records at least the brief reasons for the court's decision. The judgment emphasizes that the court must record reasons to enable the parties to understand the basis of the decision, particularly when there is a provision for appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The judgment underscores that recording reasons is imperative for the fair and equitable administration of justice and is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law and principles of natural justice.2. Legality of the Reversion of the Petitioner from the Position of Principal:The petitioner, initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher, was promoted to Principal in 1968 but was reverted by a resolution of the managing committee in 1973. The petitioner challenged this reversion in a civil suit, which was dismissed. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, declaring the reversion illegal and entitling the petitioner to the benefits and emoluments as Principal. The matter was further complicated by a pending second appeal in the High Court.3. Conduct and Fairness of the Departmental Enquiry Against the Petitioner:During the pendency of the second appeal, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under clause 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code, focusing on accounting mistakes not related to the school. The Enquiry Committee recommended termination, which was contested by the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education found the termination disproportionate and directed that the petitioner's service should not be terminated until the civil suit was decided. However, this decision was overturned by the Director of Education, who upheld the termination based on charges related to financial matters.4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice in the Enquiry Process:The petitioner argued that the enquiry process violated principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Committee did not serve the petitioner with a charge-sheet, did not allow his nominee to participate, and did not provide all requested documents for inspection. The enquiry was conducted ex parte, and the findings were communicated without a summary of proceedings. The petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Director of Education was dismissed without a hearing, and his representation to the Government was forwarded to the School Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.5. Validity of the High Court's Rejection of the Writ Petitions Without Recording Reasons:The High Court rejected the petitioner's writ petitions with laconic orders stating 'rejected' without providing reasons. The Supreme Court highlighted that such dismissals without recording reasons are contrary to the principles of natural justice and rule of law. The judgment references several precedents, including Mahabir Prasad v. State of U.P. and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, which affirm the necessity of reasoned judgments in quasi-judicial determinations to ensure decisions are reached according to law and are not arbitrary.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and directing it to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law, after giving a hearing to the parties and passing a speaking order. The court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons to ensure transparency and fairness in judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving substantial questions of law and facts. The judgment reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, necessitating reasoned orders in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.