‘Officials should know tenets of admn law’
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that senior state officers “are not only supposed to know but are also legally bound to know the basic principles of administrative law”.
The assertion came as Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri called for an explanation from Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board’s
the then Chief Administrator for bypassing procedural norms in an appeal involving an employee.
The assertion by Justice Puri came in a case where an order in an appeal was apparently passed by the punishing authority in contravention of the established principle of natural justice. The matter was placed before the Bench after employee Ishpal Singh Chauhan moved court for the second time against the board and another respondent through counsel Raman B Garg and Mayank Garg. He had, among other things, challenged the order of punishment and another order passed in an appeal.
Against principle of natural justice
It appears that the appellate order has been passed by the punishing authority which is totally contrary to the established principle of natural justice, i.e. doctrine of bias, apart from being without authority of law. —Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, Punjab & Haryana HC
Justice Puri’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the no order passed by the appellate authority or the board of directors was on the record. An order has rather been passed by the Chief
Administrator, who was the punishing authority.
Responding to a court query on the absence of order passed by the Board of Directors, the counsel for the respondents submitted that a reference has been made to the order in the appellate order. “The order has been passed by the Chief Administrator, who is the punishing authority. It appears that the appellate order has been passed by the punishing authority which is totally contrary to the established principle of natural justice i.e. doctrine of bias apart from being without authority of law,” the court observed.
Justice Puri asserted the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition and go in for a second round of litigation. As such, it was extremely necessary to call for an explanation from the Chief Administrator who passed the order.
Justice Puri also impleaded IAS officer TL Satyaparkash as a respondent. “An opportunity is granted to the newly added respondent to explain to the court as to how the punishing authority has passed an order in an appeal. Not only this, he would also explain to the court as to whether the board of directors had actually deliberated and considered the petitioner’s appeal.
Before parting with the order, Justice Puri made it clear that the entire record pertaining to the case would be sealed and brought to the court on the next date of hearing in October-end.
