Disciplinary penalties require reasoned consideration of the employee’s reply; non-speaking orders are unsustainable.

The petitions were heard analogously because they involved substantially similar issues

The petitioners were employees of the respondent department. Following the theft of ₹99,756 from the Distribution Centre, Simariya, during the intervening night of 23–24 August 2012, an FIR was registered and the stolen property was subsequently seized.

The competent departmental authority issued show-cause notices dated 6 August 2013, to which the petitioners submitted replies. However, by order dated 30 September 2014, the authority directed recovery of ₹31,000 from each petitioner’s salary on the ground that they were posted at the Distribution Centre when the theft occurred.

The petitioners challenged the order as non-speaking, passed without consideration of their replies, and issued without jurisdiction.

The respondents contended that the replies had in fact been considered and that the Executive Engineer possessed delegated supervisory powers under an order dated 8 October 1991.

Whether an order imposing recovery from the petitioners’ salaries could be sustained when it did not disclose consideration of their replies or provide reasons for rejecting their defence.

Whether, even in proceedings involving a minor penalty, the disciplinary authority was required to hold an enquiry where the petitioners disputed the factual allegations.

Whether the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh proceedings before the competent authority.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement that administrative, quasi-judicial, and disciplinary orders affecting a person’s rights must be reasoned and speaking orders.

Relying on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, it held that reasons demonstrate application of mind, prevent arbitrary exercise of power, facilitate judicial review, and constitute an essential component of fair decision-making.

The Court also relied on O.K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India, holding that even where the proposed punishment is a minor penalty, the employee must be given an opportunity to explain the charges; where factual charges are denied, an enquiry is required as a minimum requirement of natural justice.

The Court further followed the coordinate Bench’s decision in Manbahor Patel v. Managing Director and Others, which required reconsideration of a non-speaking disciplinary or appellate order in accordance with Kranti Associates.

The Court found that the petitioners had submitted replies to the show-cause notices, but the impugned order neither recorded their defence nor supplied reasons for rejecting it.

The respondents’ assertion that the replies had been considered could not cure the defect apparent on the face of the order, since the order itself had to demonstrate consideration of the employees’ objections.

Because the allegations were factual and the petitioners disputed liability, the authority was also required to conduct an appropriate enquiry before imposing the recovery, notwithstanding that the punishment was in the nature of a minor penalty.

The absence of reasons and failure to follow the minimum requirements of natural justice rendered the order arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

The matter was remitted to the disciplinary or competent authority to recommence the proceedings from the stage of receipt of the petitioners’ replies, conduct an appropriate enquiry in accordance with O.K. Bharadwaj, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The petitions were accordingly disposed of.