A Tribunal’s Unreasoned Rejection of an Application Cannot Stand.

The petitioner, a Medical Officer Grade-II (Ayurveda), was discharged from service in 2012.

The KSAT set aside the discharge order in 2015 and directed consequential benefits; he was reinstated in 2016, with a departmental inquiry pending.

Following the inquiry, the State passed an order dated 27 March 2023.

The petitioner challenged that order before the KSAT in Application No. 20596 of 2023.

The KSAT rejected the application after recording the parties’ submissions and referring to Rule 99 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), but without assigning reasons.

The petitioner challenged that decision before the High Court.

Whether the KSAT’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application was liable to be set aside because it did not give reasons for rejecting the application

Whether the matter should be remitted to the KSAT for fresh consideration

The KSAT referred to Rule 99 of the KCSRs, but the High Court did not interpret or apply that rule to determine the merits of the petitioner’s challenge.

The High Court applied the principle that an adjudicatory order must provide reasons for its decision; an order rejecting an application without reasons may be set aside as having been made without application of mind.

No precedent was cited.

The High Court reviewed the KSAT’s order and found that it merely recorded the parties’ submissions and extracted Rule 99, without explaining why the petitioner’s application was rejected.

Because the KSAT had not given reasons or demonstrated consideration of the application, the High Court held that the order was without application of mind.

It therefore set the order aside without deciding the parties’ underlying contentions, leaving them open for the KSAT’s fresh consideration.

All contentions were kept open, and the parties were directed to appear before the KSAT on 26 October 2026.