Appellate authorities must pass reasoned, speaking orders addressing every ground raised in disciplinary appeals.

The petitioner, a police official, was subjected to departmental proceedings and, by order dated 25 January 2020, was awarded the major punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Gwalior Range. The appellate authority referred to the allegations, the petitioner’s appeal, and the Superintendent of Police’s comments, but did not deal with the individual facts and grounds raised in the appeal.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order and the subsequent mercy-appeal order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that they were non-speaking, arbitrary, and contrary to Regulation 273 of the Police Regulations.

The State supported the impugned orders.

Whether the appellate authority’s order rejecting the petitioner’s departmental appeal was invalid for failure to record reasons and consider the grounds raised in the appeal, contrary to Regulation 273 of the Police Regulations.

Whether the appellate and mercy-appeal orders were liable to be quashed for being non-speaking and inconsistent with the principles laid down in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to judicially review administrative and quasi-judicial orders.

Regulation 273 of the Police Regulations mandates that every appellate order must contain the reasons on which it is based.

A disciplinary appellate authority exercising quasi-judicial powers must apply its mind to the entire record, consider the grounds raised by the delinquent employee, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Under Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reasons are essential to fairness, transparency, accountability, and effective judicial review; “rubber-stamp reasons” do not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision.

State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh establishes that an administrative or executive decision affecting rights must be composite and self-sustaining, containing the reasons that prevailed with the decision-maker, and cannot be capricious, arbitrary, or prejudiced.

The Court found that the petitioner’s appeal contained several pages of facts and grounds, but the appellate authority did not examine or answer them.

Merely reproducing the allegations, the appeal contentions, and the Superintendent of Police’s comments, followed by a conclusion that the punishment was proportionate, did not demonstrate independent application of mind.

Since Regulation 273 expressly required reasons in an appellate order, and the authority was exercising quasi-judicial power, the failure to address the petitioner’s specific grounds rendered the order non-speaking and legally unsustainable.

The defect was substantive because reasons are necessary to show that discretion was exercised on relevant grounds and to permit effective judicial review.

It consequently quashed the impugned appeal-rejection order and the mercy-appeal rejection order.

The DIG, Gwalior Range, was directed to reconsider the appeal afresh, pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering every fact and ground raised in the appeal, and afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.