9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents in all these writ petitions are one and the same. The counsel for both sides have advanced common arguments in all these writ petitions, besides common question arise for determination of this Court. Therefore, all the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner in WP No. 1748 of 2017 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing cement and allied activities. The petitioner in WP Nos. 1749 to 1751 of 2017 are holding the executive post in the above said company at various level. According to the petitioners, in the year 2007, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) proposed a private league of 20-20 format of cricket called Indian Premier League (IPL) and for this purpose they have floated a tender inviting city based Franchise. The petitioner company particpated in the said tender and became successful in bagging a franchise/team called as Chennai Super Kings (CSK). According to the petitioners, the format of the game involves each franchise playing a game against each of the other franchise, one at its designated home stadium and the other at the home stadium of the opponent team. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfactory, accepted or entertained is also not known and the petitioners were made to grope in the dark. Even in the impugned communication, the second respondent has not indicated as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioners on 19.06.2015 has been accepted or not. The impugned communication dated 04.11.2016 is bereft of any material particulars and it is vague. There was no reasons assigned by the second respondent while issuing the impugned communications dated 04.11.2016 or it is not known as to what prompted the second respondent to issue the impugned communications dated 04.11.2016. The impugned communications dated 04.11.2016 have been issued only to comply with an empty formality and they are legally not sustainable. A perusal of the impugned communications would reveal that the second respondent has not assigned any reasons for issuing them. The basis on which the second respondent has issued the impugned communications has not been revealed. Whether the second respondent has accepted the reply dated 19.06.2015 sent by the petitioners or not is not known to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly dated 19.06.2015, the petitioners have specifically stated that they may be given an opportunity of personal hearing. In other words, in the reply dated 19.06.2015, a specific request was made for affording a personal hearing before any order is passed against the petitioners. Therefore, it is evident that only on the basis of the request made by the petitioners, the communications dated 04.11.2016 have been sent to them fixing a date for personal hearing. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is no reason assigned in the communication dated 04.11.2016 by the second respondent. It has to be noted that already, a show cause notice dated 27.02.2015 was sent by the second respondent to the petitioners. In the said show cause notice, certain violations allegedly committed by the petitioners have been indicated. For the said show cause notice, a detailed reply dated 19.06.2015 have been sent by the petitioners. It is in pursuance of the said reply and/or in continuation of the proceedings which formed part of the show cause notices dated 27.02.2015, the present communications dated 04.11.2016 have been sent by the second resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons made against the petitioners and for such purpose, the communications dated 04.11.2016 has been issued. 10. it is well settled that the reasons are the heart beat for any conclusion arrived at by an instrumentalities of the State. In the present case, reasons have been clearly spelt out by the second respondent by stating as follows:- "I have considered the complaint along with its relied upon documents, the Show cause notice and the replies to SCN referred to above. On the basis of the same, I am of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint and the defense reply, need in depth examination and an inquiry should be held in this case...." 11. This has clearly exposed the application of mind on the part of the second respondent who wanted to examine in detail the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the light of the reply given by them. For such examination, the second respondent has issued the communications dated 04.11.2016. The communications dated 04.11.2016 is not a final adjudication order requiring the second respondent to deal with each and every one of the allegations and counter-allegations raised in this regard. When the second respondent wan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, I do not think that there is any scope for expanding Rule 4 (3) to mean that the forming of the opinion as required in Rule 4 (3) has to be reflected by an order in writing containing reasons. The interpretation given by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its expression 'opinion' appears to be very elastic. 13. Therefore, as held by this Court in the decision referred to above, there are several stages of an inquiry and one such stage is affording an opportunity to the noticee to certain aspects inter alia giving an opportunity to the noticee to putforth their defence. In such view of the matter, the communications dated 04.11.2016, which are impugned in these writ petitions, can be construed to be the one issued by the second respondent in compliance with the principles of natural justice while conducting an enquiry against the petitioners and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. In yet another order dated 09.12.2014 passed by this Court in WP No. 18857 of 2010 (KIBS Hoisery Mills Pvt Ltd., vs. The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement Foreign Exchange Management Act) relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... munication calling upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry need not be elaborate. In the present case, the respondent has clearly indicated that even though a reply was sent by the petitioners on 19.06.2015, yet, certain aspects required to be investigated in-depth and therefore the communications dated 04.11.2016 was issued. 16. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court passed on 07.08.2013 in WP No. 5305 of 2013 (Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar vs. Union of India through Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and another) wherein in para No.15 and 21, it was held as follows:- "15. However, this formation of opinion by the adjudicating authority is not required to be preceded by a personal hearing but only consideration of the written objections of the noticee would meet the ends of natural justice. The personal hearing would be afforded to the noticee before the disposal of the show cause notice by a final order - an appelable order. This formation of opinion must be on record of the Adjudicating Authority, in this case the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement. Keeping this recording of reasons on the file wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in terms of Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules. However, if on receipt of the notice for personal hearing, the recorded reasons are sought for by the noticee, the same should be given. However, this recording of reasons is not an appealable order but it would be give the noticee a chance during adjudication proceedings to meet the reasons which led the Adjudicating Authority to form an opinion that he must proceed further with the inquiry against noticee. This would only result in fair procedure which would be in consonance not only with Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules but with principles of natural justice." 17. The above decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court clearly indicates that before arriving at a conclusion by the adjudicating authority, notice should be given, opportunity should be afforded to the noticee before proceeding further. Precisely, the impugned communications are in compliance with the directives of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The communications which are impugned in these writ petitions are not in contravention with the decision of the Bombay High Court. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
