Where A Rule Requires Reasons To Be Recorded In Writing, They Have To Be ‘Meaningful’ & ‘Self Speaking’: Delhi HC

The Court said that reasons that do not enable the link to be drawn between the material on which the conclusion is to be drawn and the actual conclusion are not, therefore, reasons at all.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed, “Where a Rule requires reasons to be recorded in writing, they have to be meaningful and self speaking reasons. They cannot be left in the realm of conjectures and surmise.”

CGSC Pratima N. Lakra appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate AK Behera appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a 1990 batch IAS officer of the Haryana Cadre for allegedly accepting a CDMA mobile phone and engaging in unauthorized discussions regarding official matters. After an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer partly proved the first charge but dismissed the second. The Central Vigilance Commission later advised dropping the charges. Despite this, the Disciplinary Authority remitted the case for a fresh inquiry under Rule 9(1) of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The officer challenged that decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that once the CVC had provided its advice, the DA could not remit the matter for fresh inquiry without substantial reasons. The Tribunal agreed and quashed the DA’s decision on the ground that the DA could not revert to Rule 9(1) after seeking CVC advice and no valid grounds for a fresh inquiry were provided.

The Court noted that the para which purports to justify the decision to remit the matter can hardly be said to constitute reasons in writing, justifying the decision of the DA to remit the matter to the IO. The Court observed, “There is no reference to the nature of the “crucial piece of evidence”. The basis of the further observation, that the material reason for the charges against the respondent not having been found by the IO not to have been proved was because of the none production of the said “crucial piece of evidence”, is also not forthcoming. The reasoning is, at the highest, mere lip service to the requirement of Rule 9(1) and is left delightfully in the realm of conjecture.”

The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in UOI v Mohan Lal Capoor and quoted, “Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Union of India v Anand Mohan Sharan (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7900-DB)