Administrative Authorities Exercising Quasi-Judicial Power Must Issue Reasoned and Speaking Orders to Ensure Transparency

The petitioner, a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police, was sanctioned 15 days of leave for domestic issues. He failed to rejoin on time, citing illness, and eventually reported for duty on 15.05.1994

A departmental inquiry was initiated, leading to a charge sheet for unauthorized absence. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved, though the petitioner contended the officer failed to consider whether the absence was willful or due to compelling medical circumstances

On 25.01.1997, the disciplinary authority terminated the petitioner’s services

The petitioner’s appeal against this termination was rejected on 17.04.1997 via a brief order citing his past record of 20 prior punishments

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the appellate authority’s order was a speaking and reasoned order as required for quasi-judicial proceedings

2. Whether the absence from duty must be proven "willful" to justify termination, particularly in light of compelling medical circumstances

The Court primarily applied the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must pass "speaking orders" supported by valid and justifiable reasons

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178, which establishes that for a charge of unauthorized absence to be proved, it must be shown that the absence was "willful" and not due to compelling circumstances

Doctrine of fairness as articulated in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016) 1 SCC 724, emphasizing that reasons are the lifeblood of judicial decision-making and a component of human rights

The Court observed that the appellate authority, while exercising quasi-judicial power, failed to apply its mind to the specific grounds raised by the petitioner regarding his medical condition

Upon perusing the impugned order dated 17.04.1997, the Court found it to be "non-speaking" and "unreasoned," acting more like an "inscrutable face of a sphinx" rather than a reasoned decision

The Court noted that the appellate authority merely focused on the petitioner’s past conduct without objectively determining if the specific period of absence in question was willful or necessitated by illness

The Court held that transparency and the recording of cogent reasons are essential restraints on the arbitrary exercise of power

It remanded the matter to the appellate authority with directions to allow the petitioner to file a fresh appeal within one month. The appellate authority is directed to provide a personal hearing and pass a reasoned, speaking order within three months, specifically determining whether the unauthorized absence was willful or due to compelling circumstances in light of the Krushnakant B. Parmar precedent