An appellate order cannot cure a non-speaking disciplinary punishment order.

The petitioner, a Jail Prahari, was charged after two bidi bundles—alleged to be prohibited items—were found with him while he was posted as a Warder at Central Jail, Gwalior.

Following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect on 27 December 2018.

On suo motu review, respondent No. 2 issued a notice, received the petitioner’s reply dated 11 June 2019, and by order dated 24 July 2019 enhanced the penalty to withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

The petitioner’s appeal was rejected on 1 September 2026.

He challenged both orders under Article 226, contending that the review order did not give reasons or address his reply.

Whether the Reviewing Authority’s order enhancing the punishment was invalid for failure to provide reasons and consider the petitioner’s reply

Whether the reasons in the appellate order could cure the absence of reasons in the original review punishment order

Under Article 226, a quasi-judicial authority exercising disciplinary or review powers must apply its mind to the relevant facts and record clear, valid reasons for a decision prejudicially affecting a person.

In State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, the Supreme Court held that administrative or executive decisions must be self-sustaining and disclose the reasons informing the decision.

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, establishes that reasoned decisions are a requirement of fairness and facilitate judicial review.

Further, Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, holds that reasons in an appellate order cannot compensate for their absence in the original order.

The review order enhanced the petitioner’s penalty but did not explain why his reply and the facts he raised failed to justify his defence; the order merely stated that no proper facts or grounds had been submitted.

Because the Reviewing Authority was exercising quasi-judicial power, it was required to disclose its reasoning.

The appellate order could not cure that defect, even if it contained reasons, because the original decision itself had to satisfy the requirement of reasoned decision-making.

It remanded the matter to respondent No. 2 to pass a reasoned and speaking order, after giving the petitioner a personal hearing and considering each point in his reply dated 11 June 2019, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and disposed of the petition.