A quasi-judicial appellate authority must pass a reasoned, speaking order addressing every appellate ground.

The petitioner, a police Inspector, was subjected to departmental proceedings in which three charges were found proved.

By order dated 21 January 2022, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reversion from Inspector to Sub-Inspector for one year.

The petitioner challenged the punishment by filing an appeal before the Director General of Police/appellate authority.

The appeal was rejected by order dated 20 June 2022.

The petitioner contended that the appellate authority had failed to consider the grounds raised in the appeal and had passed a non-speaking and unreasoned order.

The relevant appellate order merely recorded that the departmental record and service record had been examined, noted that the petitioner had received 36 minor punishments, and concluded that the grounds of appeal were not legally or factually sustainable.

Whether the appellate order rejecting the petitioner’s departmental appeal was invalid for failure to provide adequate reasons and for being non-speaking?

Whether the appellate authority, while exercising quasi-judicial powers, was required to consider each material fact and ground raised in the appeal and provide a reasoned order?

What relief and directions should follow from the invalidity of the appellate order?

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may judicially review administrative and quasi-judicial decisions for arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of the requirement to give reasons.

An appellate authority deciding a departmental appeal exercises quasi-judicial powers and must pass a speaking, reasoned, and legally sustainable order after applying its mind to the relevant facts and grounds.

In State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, the Supreme Court held that an administrative or executive decision must be composite and self-sustaining, containing the reasons that led the decision-maker to its conclusion.

In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court affirmed that reasons are indispensable in judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative decisions affecting rights; they restrain arbitrariness, demonstrate consideration of relevant factors, and facilitate judicial review.

The High Court found that the appellate authority did not meaningfully examine the petitioner’s specific grounds of challenge.

The order referred generally to the departmental inquiry, the service record, and the petitioner’s past punishments, but did not explain why the grounds raised in the appeal were legally or factually unacceptable, nor why the punishment of reversion was justified.

Since the appellate authority was exercising quasi-judicial powers, a mere recital that the record had been examined was insufficient.

The absence of cogent reasons prevented the petitioner from knowing how his defence had been considered and impeded effective judicial review.

Accordingly, the appellate order was held to be non-speaking and unsustainable in law.

It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh appeal along with his earlier appeal to the competent appellate authority within one month.

The appellate authority was directed to provide the petitioner a personal hearing and decide the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order, after considering every fact and ground raised in the appeal, within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of; the disciplinary order dated 21 January 2022 was not itself quashed.