TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase should be decided by the authority hearing the arguments and that a successor cannot decide a case without hearing the arguments afresh on the ground that arguments have already been advanced before his predecessor who left the case without deciding it himself, so said by the Division Bench in Andrew's case (supra ). ( 2. ) EXT . P5 order dated 28. 8. 1997 passed by the Additional secretary (Sri. K. Rajendran) has been challenged by the appellant in the Writ petition wherefrom the present. Writ Appeal arose. By the said order, the government found that the appellant was personally liable for the loss of ₹ 48. 602/- sustained by it and hence it ordered to recover the said sum from the dcrg payable to him, on retirement. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said procedure could not said to be unauthorised in view of rr. 11 and 12 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala. ( 3. ) LET us now examine as to how far there is application of the mind in the process of determination involved in Ext. P5. When we say application of the mind it is meant to involve subjective process of analysis or appreciation. The person who decides must apply his mind in which event every material even the comportment of the person who has been heard would be oscillating afresh in the mind. In such backdrop the decision making process would be serene and not shillyshallying for the person who heard the matter. It would also ensure unimpaired contentment for the person who has been heard that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the person who has been heard in a matter when he receives an order from the person who heard him. He at the first instance, checks up whether his contentions are properly analysed and probed into. Then he turns to know whether the order has been passed by the person who actually heard him and whether the submissions made by him during the hearing have been properly taken note of. If these things are accomplished he may feel that the justice is seemingly bestowed to him. When we look at Ext. P5 in this premise the appellant would be right in saying that though he was heard by Sri. Sajan Peter special Secretary the order was passed by Sri. Rajendran, Additional Secretary who never had the opportunity to hear him and record his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not only be done, but must manifestly be seen to be done, and the interviewing by the justices of the officer in the absence of the applicant and his advisers could not be justified and the conviction must be quashed, the justices being ordered to pay the costs of the application for certiorari. What we see here from the above factual background of the case is the exemplifying sensitiveness of the rule. The observations of this rule of 'seeming justice' is an indispensable requirement in the matter of administrative action. The agility of doing justice, would be of no use unless it appears to have been done so. The person who passes order after hearing has a dual function thus to perform while conforming to the principles of natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
