Authorities deciding leave applications must provide a personal hearing and pass reasoned orders.

The petitioner, then an Inspector, joined at Shivpuri after transfer from Gwalior on 4 August 2006.

After giving evidence in court at Gwalior on 26 August 2006, she took leave until 28 November 2006, asserting that she was receiving continuous treatment for gynaecological ailments and Chikungunya and submitting medical certificates.

The Deputy Inspector General treated the 94-day period as leave under Leave Rule 24, and the appellate authority rejected her appeal.

The petitioner challenged both orders, alleging that her explanation and medical records had not been properly considered.

1. Whether the original and appellate orders refusing to grant the petitioner’s requested leave were sufficiently reasoned and demonstrated proper consideration of her case.

2. Whether the challenged orders should be set aside and the matter reconsidered after giving the petitioner a personal hearing.

The Court applied the Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, under which the petitioner’s leave case was to be reconsidered.

It relied on the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting a person’s rights must state cogent reasons, show consideration of relevant factors, and be capable of meaningful judicial review (*State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh*, (2016) 1 SCC 724; *Kranti Associates*; *Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, (2010) 13 SCC 427).

In particular, the absence of reasons in the original order cannot be cured by reasons supplied at the appellate stage.

The original order merely recorded that the 94-day period was to be treated under Leave Rule 24, without showing how the petitioner’s explanation or medical evidence had been assessed.

The appellate order referred to her service record and concluded that her appeal was baseless, but did not adequately explain its treatment of the grounds raised.

Because both orders failed to disclose a reasoned consideration of the relevant circumstances, the Court held that they were not speaking orders.

The appropriate remedy was to quash them and require fresh consideration, rather than determine the petitioner’s leave entitlement itself.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case under the Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, after affording her a personal hearing, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

The Court did not decide whether the petitioner was ultimately entitled to the leave sought.