Authorities must pass a reasoned, speaking order on the show-cause reply after considering relevant precedent.

The applicant challenged the respondents’ action concerning his offer of appointment, after a show-cause notice dated 06.07.2026 was issued to him.

He submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, annexed as Annexure A-2.

On 10.08.2026, the Tribunal directed the respondents to obtain instructions regarding the applicant’s representation dated 10.07.2026.

The respondents subsequently stated that they had considered the representation and issued a letter dated 24.08.2026.

That letter recorded that an FIR had been registered against the applicant and certain family members under Sections 85, 316(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that the applicant’s appointment had been kept pending until his acquittal, in accordance with the department’s stated practice.

During the hearing, the applicant relied upon the judgment dated 14.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024 and requested that its applicability be considered while deciding his reply.

The respondents acknowledged that no final decision had yet been taken on the show-cause notice or the applicant’s reply.

Whether the Original Application was premature when no final decision had been taken on the show-cause notice or the applicant’s reply.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s reply and pass a reasoned and speaking order concerning his appointment.

Whether the respondents were required to consider the applicability of the High Court’s judgment dated 14.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024 while deciding the matter.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a person’s representation or reply and issue a reasoned and speaking order before taking a final adverse decision.

It also recognised that judicial review at the interlocutory stage may be premature where the competent authority has not yet taken a final decision on the show-cause notice or representation.

The Tribunal further directed the respondents to consider the precedent relied upon by the applicant, namely the High Court judgment dated 14.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024, without itself expressing any view on its applicability or on the merits of the dispute.

Since the respondents had not passed a final order on the show-cause notice or the applicant’s reply, the Tribunal observed that the OA appeared to be premature.

Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, it required the respondents to undertake the primary decision-making exercise themselves.

The respondents were therefore directed to consider the applicant’s reply, address the circumstances relating to the pending criminal case and the withholding of the appointment, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal additionally required consideration of the High Court judgment relied upon by the applicant, thereby ensuring that the decision would reflect application of mind to the relevant legal precedent.

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s reply to the show-cause notice dated 06.07.2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order, also taking into account the High Court judgment dated 14.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024.

The exercise was to be completed within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The OA was disposed of in these terms.