TARA CHAND KHATRI versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

TARA CHAND KHATRI

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

November 26. 1976

[A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJJ

Serl' ice matter-Disciplinary whority-Recording reasons-When gatory.

obli-

Higlz Court-If 11nder d11ty to enq11ire into allegatiom of mala fides.

The appellant, school teacher under the Delhi Municipal Corporation. was dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner (Education) after follow-ing the procedure prescribed under the Regulations. His appeal to the Com-missioner of the Corporation was dismissed and his writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court. On further appeal to this Court it was contended that ( 1) the order of dismissal was invalid for the reason that the Commissioner being the appointing authority, the Deputy Commissioner was incompetent to dismiss him and the regulation conferring power on the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss municipal employee drawing less than Rs. 350 being inconsistent with s. 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporatiori Act 1957 is void; (2) s'nce die disciplinary authority had neither recorded its findings nor given its reasons in the order of dismissal it is vitiated and ( 3) the petition should not have been dismissed in limine by the Hi~h Court.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : ( 1) The appellant's appointment having been made by the Deputy Commissioner, who possessed plenary powers in that behalf by virtue of the delegation of power to him, there was neither any legal bar to his dismissal by that authority nor breach of the first proviso to s. 95 (1). In his writ petition before the High Court the appellant failed to make any averment regarding the incompetence of the Deputy Commissioner to pass the impugned order and the 'invalidity of the regulaHon. None of his pleas was tenable in view of the order of the Commissioner delegating his powers to the Deputy Commissioner, his actual appointment as an Assistant Teacher by the Deputy Commissioner and regulation T being consistent with s. 9 5 ( 1) of the Act. [204 & CJ

The Mana;:ement of D.T.U. v. Shri B.B.L. Hajeley & Anr. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 114 and Municipal Corporation of. Delhi v. Ram Partap Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2449(N) of 1969 delivered on January 8, 1976), held inapplicable.

(2)(a) Although it may be necessary for the disciplinary authority to record it~ provisional conclusions in the notice calling upon the delinquent officer to show cause why the proposed punishment be not imposed upon him if it differs from the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer with regard to the· charge, it is not obligatory to do so in case the disciplinary authority con-curs w:'.th the findings of the enquiring officer. {205 Fl

In the instant case it is apparent from the order of the Deouty Commissioner that he ;,greed with the findings of the Enquiring Otlicer. [208 AJ

State of Orissa v. Govinddas Pande (Civil Appeal No. 412 of 1958 decided on December 10, 1962) and State of Assam & Anr. v. Vinwl Kumar Pandit A.LR 1963 S.C. 1612 f'ollowed.

(b) While it may be necessary for disciplinary or administrative authority e.xercising quasi-judicial functions to state the reasons in support of its order if it differs from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by

1he enquiring officer in view of the sc~eine of particular . f'.nactme~t or the rules made thereunder, it would be laymg down the propos1tlon little too broadly to say that even an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. it cannot be laid down as general rule that an order is non-speaking order simply because it is brief and not elaborate. Every case has to be judged in the light of its own facts. [208 BJ

Sardar Govindrao & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1965] 1 S.C.a. 678, Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302, Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India [1970] 3 S.C.R. 40, Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201, Rangnath v. Daulatrao & Ors. [1975] 1 S.C.C. 686 and The Siemens Engineering & Mano;facturinf.( Co. of illdia Ltd. v. The Union of India & Anr. [1976] 2 S.C.C. 981, inapplicable.

(c) M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1966] 1 S.C.R. 466 contains a, correct statement of law. In Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India, [1967] · 3 S.C.R. 302 this Court did not make any observations which can be interpreted as overruling the majority judgment in the former case. In view of the .amendment of r. 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 th., dec'sion in Bhaf.(at Raja' s case was different from M.P. Industries case which had bee11; renderep on the unamended r. 55 of the Rules. [212 A; 211 Bl

(3) The High Court was not wrong in dismissing the writ petition in Ii mine because prima facie case requiring investigation had not been made out by the appellant. The High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the allegations of ma/a fides if necessary particulars of the charge making out prima, facie case are not given in lhe petition. Since the bunlen of establishing ma/a fides lies very heavily on the person wlm alleges them and the allegations made in regard thereto, ill the writ petition were not sufficient to establish malus animus. The High Court was justified in dismissing - the petition without issuing notice to the other side. [212 C-D]

CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 1972.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th March 1972 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 179 /72.

M. K. Ramamul'l.hi, K. B. Rohatagi, V. K. Jain and M. M. Kashyap, for the Appellant.

S. N. Andley, B. P. Maheshwal'i· and Suresh Sethi, for the Respon-dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by 'special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated March 28, 1972 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

The facts essential for the purpose of this appeal are : The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 68-170, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 118-225, in the Primary ~chool, Northern Railway Colony II run by the Educa-tion Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, with effect from October l, 1958. He was confirmed on the said post on Septem-ber 30, 1959. On August 28, 1964, he was transferred to the Senior Basic Middle School of the Corporation in Panna l\famirpur, Narela II. In September, 1967, he was assigned the work of teaching certain ·subjects to both the sections of Class V. In section of Class V, there

was at that time student named Surinder Kumar, son of Dhan Raj. On. September 6, 1967, Dhan ~aj made written complaint to the Edu-cat10n Officer of the Corporat10n, copy of which he endorsed to the Head Master of the School, alleging therein that the appellant had sensually misbehaved with his son, Surinder Kumar in the School Pre-mises during the recess time on 2nd and 4th September, 1967. On October 5, 1967, the Education Officer suspended the appellant. On April 15, 1968, the Assistant Education Officer, Rural North Zone, was directed by his superior to prepare charge sheet against the appel-lant whereupon charge sheet was drawn up and served on the latter on November 16, 1968. Therefore, the Director of Inquiries, who was deputed to enquire into the matter proceeded to hold the enquiry and on consideration 0£ the evidence ·adduced before him, he submitted report on May 20, 1969, ,holding that the charge levelled against the appellant had been established. On receipt of the report and perusal thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Education of the 'Corporation pass· ed the following order on May 20, 1969 :

"I have gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer and agree with his findings. The Inquiry Officer has held the charge of committing an immoral act with student of Class V, levelled against Shri Tara Chand Khatri, A/T (Respon-dent) as proved. Such an act on the part of teacher is most unbecoming, serious and reprehensible. I propose to impose the penalty of 'dismissal' from service which shall be disqualification for future employment on the respondent."

Consequent upon the pas'sing of this order, notice was issued t<> the appellant requiring him to show cause why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him. On July 11, 1969, the appellant submitted his representation in reply to the show cause notice. By order dated July 30, 1968, the Deputy Commissioner, rejected the re-presentation of the appellant and imposed the penalty of dismiSsal from service upon him. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of the Corporation on August 29, 1969, under regulation 11 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Con-trol and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') which was rejected by the Commissioner on September 13, 1969. On October 11, 1971, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1969 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the aforesaid order of his dismissal from service. The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the order of the Appellate Authority was made in violation of the requirements of regulation 15 of the Regu-lations and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case as alw the requirements of Regulation 15 of the Regulation. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Judge added that if the appellant still felt aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Autho-rity he would be at liberty in appropriate proceeding3 not only to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority but the order of the-disciplinary authority as well. On remand, the Commissioner of the Corporation who happened to be an officer different from the one who rejected the appellant's appeal on the former occasion heard the appe-

Hant at considerable length but rejected the appeal by an elaborate order dated January 5, 1972. The appellant ther~upon fil~d writ petition No. 179 of 1972 in the High Court of ~el~1 chall~ngmg.the order dated July 30, 1969 of the Deputy Comm1ss10ner, Education, as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 5, 1972. This petition was, as already stated, summarily dismissed without the issue of notice to the respondents. The appellant then made an application to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court but the same was also rejected.Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Ramamurthi has vehemently contended that the appointing authority of tl~e app~J~ant beincr the Commissioner under section 92, of the Dellu M11mc1pal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), his dis-missal from service by the Deputy Commissioner (Education)-an authority subordinate to the Commissioner is illegal. The counsel has next urged that regulation 7 of the Regulatious and the Schedule referred to therein conferring power on the Deputy Commis1sioner to dismiss municipal officea: or other employee drawing monthly salary of less than Rs. 350/- being inconsistent with section 95 of the Act is void and consequently the impugned order of the appellant's dismissal from service passed in exercise of that power is also illegal and invalid. The counsel has further contended that the impugned order of the appellant's dismissal from service being quasi-judicial order is vitiated as the disciplinary authority has neither recorded its findings with respect to the charge drawn up against the appellant as1 required by regulation 8(9) of the Regulations nor has it given its reasons for passing the order. The counsel has lastly urged that the High Court ought not to have dismissed tlhe petition in limine without calling upon the respondents to file the return as it raised not only arguable points of law but also contained allegations of male fides against the respondents. We shall deal with these points ser'iatim. But before embarking o~ that task, we consider it apposite to refer to few provisions of the Act and regulations which have an important bearing on the case.

Under section 92(1) (b) of the Act, as in force at the relevant time the power o~ appointing municipal officers and other municipal employees whether temporary or permanent, to posts ca~rying mini-mum monthly salary (exclusive of allowances) of less than three hundred and fifty rupees was vested in the Commissioner. Sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act provided that every municipal officer or other municipal employee shan be liable.. . . . . . . . to be censured, reduced in rank, compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed' for any breach of any departmental regulation3 or of discipline or for carelcs.sness, unfitness, negl~t of duty or other misconduct by such au.thonty as. may be, prescnbed by regulations. The first proviso to this sub-section, however, contained the following .rider:-

"Provided that no such officer or other employee as aforesaid shall be reduced in rank, compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed."

Section 491 of the• Act which is in the nature of an enabling pro-vision provided as. under;-

"The Commissioner may by order direct that any power con-ferred or any duty imposed on him by or under this Act shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the onler, be exercised and per-formed also by any officer or other municipal employee specified in the order."

It is admitted by the appellant that in; exercise of the power con-ferred on him under sedion 491 of the Act, the Commissioner had vide his order No. (1)58 Law Corp-1 dated April 7, 1958, directed that all the powers conferred on him under the various provisions of the Act would be exercised also by th11 Deputy Commissioner subject to his supervision, control and revision.

Regulation 7 of the Regulations and the Schedule referred to there-in read as under:-

"Regulation 7: The authority specified in column 1 of the Schedule may impose on any of the municipal officers or other municipal employees specified there against in colu-mn 2 thereof any of the penalties specified there against in column 3 thereof. Any such officer or employee may appeal against the order imposing upon him any of those penalties to the authority specified in column 4 of the said Schedule." ·

SCHEDULE

It would also be advantageous to refer to regulation 8 of the Regulations in so far ais it is relevant for the purpose of this appeal.

"Regulation 8: . . . . . . . . . . . .

(9) The Disciplinary Authodty, shall, if it. is .not the foquiring Authority, consider the record of mqmry and record its findings on each charge. ( 1 O) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that. any of th.e penalties specified in regulation 6 should be imposed, it shall :-(a) furnish to the municipal officer or other munici-pal employee copy of. t~e ~eport of the ~nqui~ing Autho-rity and, where the D1sc1pl111ary A~thonty. JS not tihe Inquiring Authority, statement o~ its fin<;\rngs t,?ge~her with brief reasons for disagreement, 1f any, with the nndmgs of the Inquiring Authority; and

(b) give him notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to hinl and calling upon him to submit within specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action.

( 11) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the municipal officer or other municipai employee in response to the notice under sub-regulation (10) and determine what penalty, if any, should be inlposed on the municipal officer or other municipal em-ployee and pass appropriate orders on the case.

(12) Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the municipal officer or other municipal employee who shall also be suppliecl with copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, statement of its findings together. with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, unless they have already been snpplied to him."

Having noticed the relevant provisions, we now pass on to consi-der the contentions raised on beha1f of the appellant. Adverting to the first two contentions raised before us on behalf of the appellant, it may be stated that neither of themi appear from the record to have been raised before the High Court. It was not the case 0£ the appellant in the petition filedi by him under Article 226 of the Consti-tution that since his appointment as an Assistant Teacher was actually made by the Commissioner, the Deputy' Commissioner was not competent to dismiss him from service. What was asserted hy him at that stage is contained! in ground No. VI of the petition and may be reproduced below for facility of reference:-

''.Because, in any. case, respondent No. 3 has no jurisdic-t11m to \1ear the appeal. Under section 92 of the Dell1i Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the petitioner could bd

appointed only by the Commissioner and under s~ction 95 of tht said Act, he should be the dismissing authority. In the present case, however, the Commissioner had l:Jy noti-fication undeQ sec~ion 491 of the said Act, delegated his power to the Deputy Commissioner under Circular No. 4( l) /8-Law Corp. 1 dated 7.4.1958. The dismissing order was made by the Deputy Commissioner ;is dclegatee i.e. as exercising the powers of the Commissioner. The Commissioner, therefore, could not sit in appeal on such an o:;der. Only the Standing Committee of the Curporation could have heard the appeal."The omission to make the aforesaid av(erments in the writ petition regarding the incompetence of the Deputy Commissioner to pass the impugned order of dismissal from service and invalidity of regulation 7 of the Regulations appears to be due to the. fact that the appellant folly realised that none of these pleas could be tenable in view of the aforesaid order No. ( 1) 58 Law Corp. 1 dated April 7, 1958 made by the Commissioner delegating all his powers to the Deputy Com-missioner his actual appointment as an Assistant Teacher by the Deputy Commissioner and regulation 7 of the Regulations which far from being repugnant to section/ 95 of the Act is perfectly consistent with it as sub-section ( l) of that section itself makes municipal em-ployee liable to be compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed etc. by such authority as may be prescribed by the Regulation. The prohibition contained in t!he first proviso to this Sub-section i1> confined in its operation only to casd where an officer or employee of the Corpora-tion is retired, removed or dismissed by an authority subordinat~ to that by which he was appointed. In the instant case, the appellant's appointment having been made by. the Deputy Commissioner, who possessed plenary powers in that behalf by viirtue of the aforesaid dele-gation ordeir, there was neither any legal bar to the appellant's dis-missal from service by that very authority nor breach of tho first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act. The decision of this Court in. The Management uf D.T.U. v. Shri B. B. L. Hajelay & Anr.([1]) sought to be relied upon by Mr. Rama-murthi related to an appointment which rested on deeming pro-vision and is not at all helpful to the appellant. Respondent No. 2 in that case was originally employed as driver in the Deihi Road: Transport Authority which had been constituted under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. By section 516( l) (a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 which came into force in January, 1958, .the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950, was repealed and the functions of the Delhi Road Transport Authority wore taken over by· the Corporation by virtue of several other provisions of the Act. Under section 511 of that Act i.e. the Delhi :tvlunicipal Cor-poration Act, 1957, every officer and employee of the Transport Authority including respondent No. 2 stood transferred and become an officer and employee of the Corporation and under section 92(1) (b) read with section 516(2) (a) of the Act, the said respondent was

to be deemed to have been appointed by the General Manager (Trans-port). Thr respondent in that case thus being required by fiction of law to be taken to have been appointed by the General Manager, he could nol have been removed from service in May, 1963 hy the Assistant General Manager-an authority subordinate to the General Manager-in view of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act despite the fact that the functions of the General Manager had been delegated to the Assistant General Manager in May, 1961. In that case, it was made clear by this Court that the <Ynly consequence of the delegation order was that if after 1961, the Assistant General Manager had made the appointment of respondent No. 2, he would have no doubt been entitled to remove him from service but the posi-tion had to be deterrn(med with reference to the tim.:: ·when he was absorbed in the Corporation which was in January, 1958.

The j-Jdgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Pra.tap Singh([1]) is also not he:pful to the appellant as in that case, the appointment was in fact made by the Commissionor while the dismissal was by the Deputy Commissioner.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the first two contentions raised on behalf of the appellant which are totally misconceived are repelled.

The third contention advanced by Mr. Ramamurthi that the impugned order of the appellant's dismissal from service is vitiated as the disciplinary authority has neither recorded its findings with respect to the charge drawn up against the appellant as required by regulation 8(9) of the Regulations nor has it given its reasons for passing the order cannot also be countenanced as it overlooks the dedsions of this Court, which fully cover the case.

Regarding the first limb o{ the contention, it may be stated that although it n~ay be necessary for the disciplinary authority to record: its provisional conclusions in the notice calling upon the delinquent officer to show causei why the proposed punishment be not imposed upon 11im if it differs from the findings arrived at hy the enquiring officer with regard to the charge, it is not obligatory to do so in case the disciplinary authority concurs with the findings ot the enquiring officer. We are supported in this view by two decisions of this Court in State of Orissa v. Govinddas Panda([2 ]) and State of Assam & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Pandit(3). In Govinddas Panda's case (supra) where the notice im1ed under Article 311 (2) did not expressly state that the State Government had accepted the findings recorded by · the enquiring officer against the Government servant in question and where even the nature of the punishment which was propos·~d to be inflicted! on him was not specifically and clearly indicated, this Court while reversing the conclusions oti the Orissa High Court that the notice was defective and so that provisions: of Article 311 (2) had been con-travened observed:-

(1) C.A. No. 2249 (N.) of 1969 decided on 8-1-1976.

(2) C.A. No. 412 of 1958 decided on 10-12-1962.

(3) A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1612.

"In the context, it must have been obvious to the n:spondent that the punishment proposed was removal from service and the 1espondent was called upon to show cause against that punishment. On reasonable reading of the notice, the. only conclusion a~ which one can arrive is that the appellant (the State) accepted the recommendation of the Administra-tive Tribunal and asked the respondent to show cause against the proposed punisbment, namely, that of removal from service."

In Bimal Kumar Pandit's case (supra) whik reversing the judg-ment and order of the High Court allowing the writ pehtion filed by the respondent against his reduction in rank on the ground that the notice ~erved upon him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution was void as it did not expressly and specifically indicatci either the con-clusiorns of the dismissing authority or the findings recorded by the enquiring officer or that the dismissing authority accepted the findings of the enquiring officer and unless that course was adopted, it would not be dear that the dismissing authority had applied its mind and had provisionally come to some conclusion both in regard to the guilt of the public officer and the punishment which his miscondw;t deserv-ed the Constitution Bench of this Court observed :"It may be conceded that it is desirable that the dismissing authority i>hould indicate in the second notice its concurrence with the conclusions of the enquiring officer before it i>sues the said notice under Article 311 (2). But the question which calls for our decision is it the dismissing authority does not expressly say that it has accepted the findings of the enquiring officer against the delinquent officer, does that introduce such an infirmity in the proceedings as to make _tho final order invalid ? We are not prepared to answer this question in the affirmative. It seems to us that it would be plain to the delinquent officer that the issuance of th(,\ notice indicating the provisional conclusions of the dis-missing authority as to the punishment that should be im-posed on him obviously and clearly implies that the findings recorded against him by the enquiring officer have been ac1:epted by the dismissing authority; otherwise there would be no sense or purpose in issuing the notice under Article 311(2)."

At another place, the Court observed :

"We ought, however, to all that if the dismissing authority differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report, it is necessary that its provisional conclusions in that behalf should be specified in the second notice. It may be that the report makes findings in favour of the delinquent officer, but the dismissing authority disagrees with the said findings and proceeds to issue the notice under Article 311(2). In

such case, it would obviously be necessary that the dis-missing authority should expressly state that it differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report and then indic~e the nature of the action proposed tq be taken against Vhe delinquent officer. Without such an express statement in the notice, it would be impossible to issue the notice at all . There may also be cases in which the enquiry report may make findings in favour of the delinquent officer on some issues and against him on other issues. That is precisely what has happened in the present case. If the dismissing authority accepts all the said findings in their entirety, it is another matter; but if the dismissing authority accepts the findings recorded against the delinquent officer and differs from some or all of those recorded in his favour and proceeds to specify the nature of th~ action proposed to be taken on its own conclusions, it would be necessary that the said conclusions should be brie:fly indicated in the notice. In this category of cases, the action proposed to be taken would be based not only on the findings recorded against the delin-quent officer in the enquiry report, but also on the view of the dismissing authority that the other charges not held proved by the enquiring officer are according to the dis-missing authority, proved. In order to give the delinquent officer reasonable opportunity to show cause under Art. 311 (2), it is essential that the conclusions provisionally reached by the dismissing authorty must, in such cases, be specified in the notice. But where the dismissing authority purports to proceed to issue the notice against the delinquent officer after accepting the enquiry report in its entirety, it cannot be said that the dismissing authority must say that it has so accepted the report. As we have already indicated, it is desirable that even in such cases statement to that effect should be made. But we dd not think that the words in Art. 311 ( 2) justify the view that the failure to make such statement amounts to contravention of Art. 311 (2). . . . . . . There is no doubt ·that after the report is received, appropriate authority must apply its mind to the report and must provisionally decide whether the findings recorded in the report should be accepted or not. It is only if the findings recorded in the report against the Government servant are accepted by the appropriate authority that it has to provisionally decide what action should be taken against him. But this does not mean that in every case, the appropriate authority is under constitutional obligation to state in the notice that it has accepted the adverse findings recorded by the enquiring officer before it indicates the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the delin-quent officer."

~ / ,' '

In the instant case, the incorrectness of the first limb of the con-tention is apparent from bare reading of the aforesaid order passed

by the Deputy Commissioner on May 20, 1969 which clearly states that he agrees with the findings of the enquiring officer. Reading the order as whole, it becomes crystal clear tha~ the disciplinary authority· held the charge drawn up against the appellant as proved.

. The second limb of the third contention raised on behalf of the appellant which also overlooks the decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court does not commend itself to us. In this connection, we would like to make it clear that while it may oe necessary fo1' disciplinary or administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial func-tions to state the reasons it\ support of its order if it differs from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by the emquir-ing officer in view of the scheme of particular enactment or the rules made thereunder, it would be laying down the proposition little too broadly to say that even an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. It cannot also, in our opinion, be laid down as gene-ral rule that an order is non-speaking order simply because it is brief and not elaborate. Every case, we think, has to be judged in the lil.ght of itsi own facts and circumstances. Reference in this connection may be made witlt advantage to catena of decisions. In -Simal Kumar Pandit's case (supra) it was categorically laid down by the Constitution Bench o!f this Court that it was not requirement of Article 311 (2) that irt every case, the punishing authority should in its order requiring the civil servant to show cause give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion. In that case, it wa:; clarified that the view is not justified that the appropriate authority must state its own grounds or reasons for proposing to take any specific action against the delinquent Government servant.

In State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan(') the Constitution Bench of this Court while repelling the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that the State Government's order compulsorily retiring him from service was bad ms it did not give reasor,s for accepting the findirtgs of the enquiring tribunal and imposing the penalty of com-pulsory retirement observed as follows:-

"Mr. Setalvad for the respondent attempted to argue that the impugned order gives no reasons why the appellant accepted the findings of the Tribunal. Disciplinary pro-ceedings taken against the respondent, says Mr. Setalvad, are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings md when the appellant passed the impugned order against the respon-dent, it was actirtg in quasi-judicial character. That being so, the appellant should have indicated some reasons as to why it accepted the findings of the Tribunal, and since no reasons are given, the order should be struck down on that ground alone.

In deal-

We are not prepared to accept the argum~nt. In deal-ing with the question as to whether it is obiigatory on the

C9 A.LR. 1966 S.C. 1827=(1966) 2 S.C.W.R. 524.

State Government to give reasons in support of the order imposing penalty on the delinquent officer, we cannot over-look the fact that the disciplinary proceedings against such delinquent officer begin with an enquiry conducted by an .officer appointed in that behalf. That enquiry is foLowed by report and the Public Service Commission !s consulte.d · where necessary. Having regard to the matenal which 1s thus made available to the State Government and which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it seems to us somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the State Govern-ment must record its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal. It is conceivable that if the State Government does not accept the findings of the Tribunal which may be in favour of the delinquent officer and proposes to impose penalty on the delinquent offic_er, it should give reasons whv it differs from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in such case, it is not necessary that the reasons :should be detailed or elaborate. But where the State Government agrees with the findings of the Tribunal which are against the delinquent officer, we do not think as matter of law, it could be said that the State Government cannot impose the penalty against the delinquent officer in accordance with the findings of the Tribunal unless it gives reasons to show why the said findings were accepted by it. The prpceedings are, no doubt, quasi-judicial, but having regard to the manner in which these enquiries are conducted, we do not think an obligation can be imposed on the State Government to record reasons in every case.'·

Jn Som Datt Datta v. Union of India & Ors.(I) while approving the English law and practice and overrufa1g the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the orders of the Chief of the Army Staff confirming the proceedings of the Court-Martial under section 164 of the Army Act and the order of the Central Government dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under section 165 of the Army Act were illegal and ultra vires as they did not give reasons in support df the orders, the Constitution Bench of this Court summed up the legal position as follows : ---

Apart from any requirement imposed by the statute or statutory rule either expressly or by necessary implication, there is no legal obligation that the statutory tribunal should give reasons for its decision.. T~ere is also no general princi-ple or any rule of natural 1ust1ce that statutory tribunal sho~l.d always and in every case give reasons in support of its dec1s1on.

In Madhya Prade.ch Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors'.(2) this Court repelled the conten~ion of co?nsel ~or tfie .appellant 1hal. every 0rder appealable under Article 136 of the Conshtut10n must be speak: ..

(I) [1969] S.C.R. 176. tzl /l).'i'>) 1 <;.C.R. 466-A.T.R. 1966 S.C. 671.

-1'458SCI/76

ing order and the omission to give reasons for the decision is of itself sufficient gruund ror quashing it and held that an order ot an adminis-trative tnbunal rejecting revision application cannot be pronounced to be invalid on tne sole ground that u does not give reasons tor rejec-tion. While distinguishing the case of Harinngar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sh yam Sunder J hu111hunwala( [1]) where the Central Government rever-sed the decision or the State Government without giving reasons for reversal, this Court pointed out that there was vital d1tlercnce bet-ween the order of reversai by the appellate authority and the order of affirmance by the revising authority and that if the revising authority rejects revision apphcat10n stating that there was no valid ground for interference with the order of the subordinate authority in such case, it could not be held !hat tlie order was arbitrary or that there was no trial of the revision application. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) speak-ing for himself in that case observed :-

"Ordinarily, the appellate or rcvisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly; but in case of af!irmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with those reasons."

In Judicial Revie_w of Administrative Action (Second Edition). Prof. S. A. de Smith has observed at page 418 as follows :-

"If the record is incomplete (e.g. because reasons or find-ings of material fact are omitted), has the court power to order the tribunal to complete its record? It is common ground that the court has no inherent power to co:npel tribuna1 to give reasons for its decisions. . ....... If, of course, tribunal is required by statute to declare its reasons or its find-ings on the material fac1l5, an order of marulamus may be ob-tained to compel the tribunal to perform its legal duty .... Where tribunal that is not expressly obliged to give reason~ for its decisions chooses not to give any reawns for parti-cular decision, it is not permissible to infer on that ·ground alone that its reasons for that decision were bad in law. Even if it gives reasons, which are ex facie insufficient in law to support its decision, the court will not necessarily assume that these are the sole reasons on which the tribu'nal has based its decision. (See Cf. Davies v. Price [1958] 1 Y.L.R. 434 at 440 and R. v. Minister of Hous~ng and Local Gover~ ment, ex. P. Chichester R.D.C. [1960] 1 W.L.R. 587) ."

Before concluding th\: discussion in regard to the third contention, we may point out that oone of the decisions viz. Sardar Govindrao &: Ors. v. State of Madha Pradesh(2) Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors.('!) Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India(•) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.(") Rangnath v. Da.ulat-rao & Ors. (6) and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Company of India Ltd. v. The Union of India([7 ]) on which Mr. Ramamurthi has

(l) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 339. (2) [1965] 1 S.C.R.673. (3) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302. (4) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 40. (5) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201. (6) [1975 · 1 S.C.C. 686. (7) [1976] 2 s.c.c 981.

heavily leaned has anything to do with disciplinary proceedings. At such, they have little bearing on the point with Which we are at present concerned. We would also like to point out that the observations in Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) that in Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. (supra)_, this Court in effect overruled the judgment of the majority in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) seem to have crept therein through some oversight. careful perusal of the decision in Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. (supra) would show that this Court did not make any observations therein which can be interpreted as overruling the majority judgment in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). It is also worthy of note th~i"t in Bhagat Raja's case (supra), the amend-ment of rule 55 of the M_ineral Concession Rules, 1960 introduced in July, 1965 laid down special procedure in regard to revisions. It re-quired the Central Gove.rnment to send copies of the application for revision to all the impleaded parties including the person to whom lease had been granted calling upon them to make such comments as they might like to make y<ithin three months from the date of the issue of the communication and on receipt of the comments from any party to send copies thereof to the other parties calling upon them to make further comments as they might like to niake within one month from the date of the issue of the communication. It also provided that the revision application, the communications containing comments and counter comments referred to above would constitute the record of the case. Thus under the amended rule, the party whose application was rejected got an ample opportunity of showing to the Central Govern-ment by reference not only to the record which was before the State Government but by reference to. the fresh material as well that the State Government was misled in its consideration of the matter or that its decision was based on irrelevant considerations. This is evident from the following observations- made in Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. (supra) :

"The o~d rule 55 was replaced by new rule which came into force on 19th July, 1965. Whereas the old rule directed the Central Government to consider comments on the petition of review by the State Government or other authority only, the new rule is aimed at calling upon all the parties including the State Government to make their comments in the matter and the parties are given the right to make further comments on those made by the other or others. In effect, the parties are given right to bring forth material which was not before the State Government. It is easy to see that an unsuccessful party ·may challenge the grant of ,a lease in favour of another by pointing out defects or demerits which did not come to the knowledge of the State Gov~rnment. The order in this case does not even purport to show that the comments and coun-ter comments which were before the Central Government in this case, had been considered."

The above observations leave no manner of doubt that it was in view of the amendment in rule 55 of the "Mineral Concession Rules,

1960 that the decision in Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ou. (supra) was different from Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of 1.ndia & Ors. (supra) which had been rendered on the unamended rule 55 of the said Rules. In our opinion, therefore, the observations made in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) contain correct statement of law.

In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the third contention raised on behalf of the appellant.

This brings us to the last contention raised by Mr. Ramamurthi that the writ petition should not haver been dismissed by the High Court in limine in view of the fact that it contained allegations of mala {ides against the respondents. We are unable to accept this contention. It has been held time and again by this Court that the High Court would be justified in refusing (o carry on investigation into the allegations of mala [ides if necessary particulars of the charge making out prima acce case are not given in the writ petition. Keeping in view the well established rule that the burden of establishing mala [ides lies very heavily on the person who alleges it and considering all the allegations made by the appellant in regard thereto, we do not think that they could be considered as sufficient to establish malus animus. The High Court was, therefore, not wrong in dismissing the petition in limine on seeing that prima facie case requiring investigation had not been made out.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.