Administrative tribunals must give reasoned decisions; unreasoned orders are liable to be set aside.

A criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On 18 March 2015, the Government entrusted the inquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

By order dated 4 October 2018, the Government permanently withheld 50% of respondent No. 1’s pension under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

Respondent No. 1 challenged that order before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which set it aside in Application No. 239/2019, relying on a prior KAT order and referring to Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957.

The Lokayukta authorities challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order setting aside the pension-withholding order was liable to be quashed because it did not provide reasons beyond relying on a prior Tribunal order and referring to Rule 14-A.

2. Whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal to consider the parties’ contentions and decide the application afresh.

The Court exercised its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the Tribunal’s order.

The relevant statutory context included Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, under which the inquiry had been entrusted to the Lokayukta, Rule 214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, under which the Government withheld part of the pension, and Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, which the Tribunal had referred to.

The Court applied the principle that a Tribunal’s decision must disclose reasons and reflect consideration of the matter; an order lacking such reasons may be set aside.

The judgment cited no judicial precedent as the basis for this principle; it noted that the Tribunal had relied on its earlier order in Application No. 2328/2017.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had allowed the application without assigning reasons, apart from relying on its earlier decision in Application No. 2328/2017 and referring to Rule 14-A.

It also noted the petitioners’ submission that they had been taken by surprise by that reliance and had no opportunity to counter the earlier decision.

On that record, the Court concluded that the Tribunal’s order was without application of mind and could not stand.

It did not determine the merits of the pension order or the parties’ substantive contentions.

It directed the Tribunal to consider both parties’ contentions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6 November 2026.

The High Court expressly left all contentions open and made no adjudication on the merits.