1986 (8) TMI 56 - SC - Income Tax

Whether a court while hearing writ petitions is under an obligation to pass a speaking order? Held that - It is a cardinal principle of rule of law which governs our policy that the Court including Writ Court is required to record reasons while disposing of a writ petition in order to enable the litigants more particularly the aggrieved party to know the reasons which weighed with the mind of the Court in determining the questions of facts and law raised in the writ petition or in the action brought. This is imperative for the fair and equitable administration of justice. Every quasijudicial order must be supported by reasons. Appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed is hereby set aside. 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

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Obligation of court to pass a speaking order while dismissing or rejecting writ petitions.
2. Legality of the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Principal.
3. Conduct of departmental enquiries and adherence to principles of natural justice.
4. Consideration of appeals by educational authorities and tribunals.
5. Requirement for courts to record reasons in their judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Obligation of Court to Pass a Speaking Order:
The core legal question addressed was whether courts are obligated to pass a speaking order when dismissing or rejecting writ petitions. The judgment emphasized that it is a cardinal principle of the rule of law that courts must record reasons when disposing of writ petitions. This is essential to enable litigants, especially the aggrieved party, to understand the reasons behind the court's decision. The judgment stated, "This recording of reasons in deciding cases or applications affecting rights of parties is also a mandatory requirement to be fulfilled in consonance with the principles of natural justice." The court highlighted that a laconic order like "dismissed" or "rejected" without reasons does not satisfy the requirements of justice and fair play.

2. Legality of the Reversion of the Petitioner from the Post of Principal:
The petitioner, initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and later promoted to Principal, was reverted by a resolution of the managing committee. 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. A second appeal by the opposite party is pending in the High Court.

3. Conduct of Departmental Enquiries and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner faced multiple departmental enquiries under clause 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code. The first enquiry recommended termination of the petitioner's services, which was contested and led to a series of appeals and legal challenges. The judgment noted significant procedural lapses, including the lack of a charge-sheet, denial of participation by the petitioner's nominee, and ex parte proceedings. The court underscored that the enquiry committee's procedure violated natural justice principles and clause 77.3 of the Code.

4. Consideration of Appeals by Educational Authorities and Tribunals:
The petitioner's appeals to the Deputy Director of Education and the School Tribunal were dismissed without proper consideration. The Deputy Director's decision was communicated without a hearing, and the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits. The judgment criticized these dismissals, emphasizing that the authorities failed to provide a reasoned decision, thereby denying the petitioner a fair hearing.

5. Requirement for Courts to Record Reasons in Their Judgments:
The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for courts to record reasons in their judgments to ensure transparency and accountability. The judgment cited several precedents, including Mahabir Prasad v. State of U.P. and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, to support this principle. The court concluded that the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's writ petitions without recording reasons was improper and directed the lower court to dispose of the writ petition with a speaking order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 4063 of 1984 were set aside. The lower court was instructed to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the law, providing a reasoned judgment within four months. The judgment emphasized the importance of recording reasons in judicial decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair play.