Administrative orders affecting rights must be reasoned; unreasoned orders violate the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, Vinod Kapse, filed a representation seeking the benefit of the 24-year higher time pay scale

This representation was rejected by the respondent authorities via an order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P/3)

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that the rejection was a "single line" order lacking any reasons or objective consideration, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and administrative transparency

1. Whether an administrative order rejecting a representation without assigning any reasons is legally sustainable

2. Whether the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the respondent authorities is liable to be quashed for being arbitrary and bereft of reasons

The court primarily applied the doctrine of "Reasoned Decisions" as a fundamental component of natural justice and the rule of law.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, which establishes that "reasons are the heartbeat of an order"

The principle dictates that judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities must record clear and cogent reasons to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power, ensure transparency, and facilitate judicial review

The Court observed that the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 was passed without assigned reasoning, simply stating that the representation was rejected after consideration

The Court determined that such "rubber-stamp reasons" do not constitute a valid decision-making process

since the order prejudicially affected the petitioner’s claim for a higher pay scale, the authority was duty-bound to demonstrate an objective consideration of facts

Under Article 226, the Court found the order to be "bereft of any reasons" and "tenable in the eye of law," concluding it was an arbitrary exercise of administrative power

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 28.01.2020

The matter was remanded back to the respondent authorities with a direction to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation afresh on its merits by passing a reasoned order within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment

The petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's underlying claim for the pay scale