### Administrative orders rejecting representations against adverse remarks must be reasoned and speaking orders.

The petitioner, an employee potentially eligible for promotion to Superintending Engineer or Chief Engineer, challenged the orders dated 22.03.2012 and 30.12.2017.

These orders rejected his representations regarding adverse Confidential Report (CR) entries for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.

The petitioner contended that the representations were dismissed via non-speaking and unreasoned orders, failing to consider the specific grounds raised.

The State defended the orders, asserting that all facts were considered prior to rejection.

1. Whether the administrative orders dated 22.03.2012 and 30.12.2017 rejecting the petitioner’s representation against adverse CR entries were legally sustainable as "speaking orders".

2. Whether the failure of an administrative authority to record valid and justifiable reasons in an order affecting a party's rights violates the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court primarily applied the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial orders affecting the rights of parties must be "speaking orders" supported by clear reasons.

M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, which established that recording reasons is an indispensable component of natural justice and constitutional governance.

State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016) 1 SCC 724, holding that executive decisions must be self-sustaining and impregnated with reasons to avoid being arbitrary or capricious.

Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 427, which emphasized that a "pretence of reasons" or "rubber-stamp reasons" cannot equate to a valid decision-making process.

Upon perusing the impugned rejection orders, the court observed that the respondents failed to apply their minds to the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

The court noted that the orders did not record any valid or justifiable reasons regarding the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in his representation; instead, they essentially just communicated a conclusion.

By evaluating the text of the orders against the standard set in Kranti Associates, the court determined the orders were "inscrutable" and lacked the "lifeblood of judicial decision-making"—reasoning.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner's rights regarding future promotion were affected, the administrative authority was legally obligated to demonstrate that relevant factors were objectively considered.

The High Court set aside the orders dated 30.12.2017 and 22.03.2012.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh, detailed representation within one month. The competent authority was directed to re-consider the same and pass a reasoned, speaking order after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing within three months, with consequential orders for promotion if found entitled. The petition was allowed.