Nagendra Rao Vs. Indian Bank - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....prohibit the passing of a common order of punishment based on two separate enquiries conducted against an employee-officer of the bank. the very fact therefore that the disciplinary authority while passing the final order of punishment had done so on the basis of two enquiry reports received by him, would not vitiate the order of punishment on the ground that the same is in any manner contrary to regulation 7. ... assuming that the disciplinary authority would have on the basis of the first report taken a less serious view of the matter, yet nothing prevented the disciplinary authority from taking a more serious view on being convinced that the employee having already been held guilty of misconduct once was incorrigible in his conduct warranting a heavier dose of punishment in the second case. that apart, as to what would have been the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority upon the petitioner even if the two enquiries conducted against him had culminated in two different orders of punishment is in the realm of speculation. this court cannot base only on a mere possibility of a lesser punishment having been imposed upon the petitioner if the two enquiries..........authority. in such cases the requirement of recording reasons, not only ensures proper consideration by the authorities concerned of the relevant facts but also introduces clarity in the decision and minimises the chances of arbitrariness in the making of the said decision. since any such order is appealable before a higher authority, the recording of reasons becomes necessary even to enable the appellate authority to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the lower authority has arrived at its conclusions. the obligation to give reasons however, may be dispensed with by the provisions of a statute or the rules either expressly or by necessary implication. if it is so excluded the obligation to record reasons disappears, as in the case of court martials exercising their jurisdiction under the provisions of the army act and the rules framed thereunder. the obligation to record reasons disappears even in cases where the appellate authority passes an order of affirmances in which event it is not necessary for the appellate authority to marshal the evidence and record independent conclusions or reasons for the same. where however the appellate authority reverses the findings.....

Judgment:

ORDER

OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY - Obligation to record reasons

The obligation to record reasons applies more vigorously to authorities whose orders are subject to appeal or revision before a higher authority. In such cases the requirement of recording reasons, not only ensures proper consideration by the authorities concerned of the relevant facts but also introduces clarity in the decision and minimises the chances of arbitrariness in the making of the said decision. Since any such order is appealable before a higher authority, the recording of reasons becomes necessary even to enable the Appellate Authority to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the lower Authority has arrived at its conclusions. The obligation to give reasons however, may be dispensed with by the provisions of a statute or the Rules either expressly or by necessary implication. If it is so excluded the obligation to record reasons disappears, as in the case of Court Martials exercising their jurisdiction under the provisions of the Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The obligation to record reasons disappears even in cases where the Appellate Authority passes an order of affirmances in which event it is not necessary for the Appellate Authority to marshal the evidence and record independent conclusions or reasons for the same. Where however the Appellate Authority reverses the findings recorded, it must disclose the reasons for doing so and demonstrate that the reversal is based on proper application of mind. The reasons recorded required to be recorded by an authority dealing with the matter need not be elaborate as is usually customary in the judgments delivered by the ordinary Courts. It is enough if what is recorded indicates due and proper application of mind to a matter in controversy.