A reasoned appellate order cannot cure a non-speaking disciplinary punishment order.

The petitioner, then a Scale II Branch Manager, was charge-sheeted on 24 June 2009.

Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 2 November 2011, imposed a major penalty reducing him from Scale III to Scale II and fixing his pay at the minimum of that scale.

The petitioner’s appeal was rejected on 27 November 2013, and a review appeal resulted in a partial modification of his pay on 7 May 2014.

He challenged the charge-sheet, inquiry findings, and the disciplinary, appellate, and review orders, principally arguing that the disciplinary and appellate orders were unreasoned.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority’s order imposing a major penalty was a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether the Appellate Authority’s rejection of the appeal was a reasoned order, and whether the absence of reasons in the original order could be cured at the appellate stage.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review the impugned service orders.

Under the Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 2006, disciplinary penalties are imposed under Rule 38.

The Court applied the principle that quasi-judicial authorities—and administrative authorities making decisions prejudicially affecting rights—must give clear, cogent reasons demonstrating consideration of relevant facts and defences; reasons constrain arbitrariness and facilitate judicial review (*Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan*, (2010) 9 SCC 496, as discussed at pp. 6–9, paras. 13–14).

It also relied on *State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh*, (2016) 1 SCC 724, for the requirement that a decision be informed by reasons.

An appellate order cannot ordinarily cure the absence of reasons in the original order.

The Court found that the Disciplinary Authority’s order did not adequately explain why the petitioner’s defence was rejected or provide sufficient reasons supporting the penalty.

The appellate order referred to a review of recovery performance and a Board decision, but the Board’s decision was not placed before the Court; the appellate order therefore did not demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the appeal.

Applying the requirement of reasoned decision-making, the Court held that the appellate process could not remedy the deficiency in the original disciplinary order.

The respondents were directed to provide all consequential and monetary benefits within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

As the petitioner had retired, the Court granted no liberty to take fresh action against him.