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

The petitioner, a branch manager, challenged a disciplinary order dated 27 January 2015 directing recovery of ₹2,99,010 from his salary and service benefits under Regulation 22(e) of the Corporation’s Staff Regulations, 1962.

The order followed a show-cause notice; the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, but contended that the disciplinary authority had not addressed his grounds.

His appeal was rejected on 15 February 2017.

The respondents maintained that both authorities had considered the relevant material and afforded him an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority’s order imposing recovery was a reasoned, speaking order that demonstrated consideration of the petitioner’s defence

2. Whether reasons stated in the appellate order could cure the absence of reasons in the original disciplinary order

3. Whether the respondents could be permitted to recommence disciplinary action after the impugned orders were quashed, given the petitioner’s retirement and age

A quasi-judicial authority must give reasons that disclose how the affected person’s case and relevant material were considered; reasoned decisions promote fairness, constrain arbitrary exercise of power, and facilitate judicial review.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, for the principle that decisions must be informed by reasons and be self-sustaining

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, for the requirement that decisions affecting rights give reasons demonstrating objective consideration of relevant factors

Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, for the rule that reasons absent from the original order cannot be supplied by the appellate order.

The disciplinary action was stated to be under Regulation 22(e) of the Corporation’s Staff Regulations, 1962

Although the disciplinary order referred to the inquiry report, the petitioner’s reply, and the alleged circumstances of the loss, the Court found that it did not adequately set out reasons showing how the petitioner’s defence had been assessed or how the conclusions supporting recovery had been reached.

As the order imposed a financial penalty through the exercise of quasi-judicial power, it was required to be a speaking order.

The appellate authority’s reasons could not cure that defect in the original order, because the petitioner was entitled to a reasoned decision at the disciplinary stage

Because the petitioner had retired and was 63 years old when he filed the petition, the Court granted the respondents no liberty to initiate further action against him.