Disciplinary appellate authorities must pass reasoned, speaking orders addressing every ground raised in appeal.

The petitioner, Inspector Rakesh Sharma, was subjected to departmental proceedings and, by order dated 23.04.2025, was punished with withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.

He preferred a statutory appeal before the Director General of Police, Bhopal.

The appellate authority rejected the appeal by order dated 08.01.2026, without addressing the facts and grounds raised in the nine-page appeal memorandum or providing substantive reasons.

The petitioner challenged both the punishment order and the appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally contending that the appellate order was non-speaking and violated Regulation 273 of the Police Regulations and the principles laid down in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

Whether the appellate authority’s order rejecting the petitioner’s departmental appeal, without considering the grounds raised or recording adequate reasons, violated Regulation 273 of the Police Regulations and the requirement of a speaking order.

Whether the non-speaking appellate order was liable to be quashed and the appeal remitted for fresh consideration after granting the petitioner a personal hearing.

Regulation 273 of the Police Regulations mandates that every appellate order must contain the reasons on which it is based and that a copy of the reasoned order be supplied to the appellant.

A quasi-judicial authority exercising disciplinary appellate jurisdiction must apply its mind to the relevant facts and grounds and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Relying on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Court held that reasons are an essential component of fair decision-making, restrain arbitrary exercise of power, demonstrate consideration of relevant factors, and facilitate judicial review.

It also relied on State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, for the principle that an administrative or executive decision must be composite and self-sustaining and contain the reasons that prevailed with the decision-maker.

The appellate authority merely stated that the punishment was legally valid and that the petitioner had raised no facts affecting the proved charges, concluding that the appeal was baseless.

This conclusion did not disclose consideration of any of the specific facts or grounds contained in the nine-page appeal memorandum.

Since the authority was exercising quasi-judicial appellate jurisdiction, Regulation 273 required it to record reasons, and the general principles in Kranti Associates and Bandip Singh required a genuine, intelligible application of mind rather than formulaic or “rubber-stamp” reasoning.

The Court therefore found that the appellate order was not a speaking order and could not sustain judicial scrutiny.

The appellate order was quashed.

The Director General of Police, Bhopal, was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal afresh, consider every fact and ground raised in the appeal memorandum, provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within one month of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.