Failure to pass reasoned and speaking orders in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice.

The applicant, a Chief Welfare Inspector in the Personnel Department of North Central Railway, was medically de-categorized in 2017 following an accident

On 16.03.2020, she was served a minor penalty charge-sheet under Rule 11 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging negligence for failing to address track maintainers' grievances regarding cadre restructuring benefits

The applicant denied the charges, asserting that the restructuring implementation fell under the Engineering Department's purview and alleged personal bias by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 4)

Despite her defense, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed a penalty of withholding annual increments for two years (non-cumulative) via an order dated 03.06.2020

Her subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (AA) on 28.07.2020

The applicant challenged these orders on the grounds that they were non-speaking and violated the principles of natural justice

1. Whether the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were "speaking orders" that adequately considered the applicant's defense and grounds of appeal

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice and the failure to address allegations of bias

The Tribunal applied the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned "speaking orders" to ensure transparency and fairness, as established in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010)

It relied on S. Kavitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024), which held that reasons are the "heart and soul" of an order

Regarding bias, the court invoked the doctrine of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa and the ruling in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), holding that a reasonable likelihood of bias vitiates the action

Additionally, it noted that under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, while a formal inquiry is not mandatory for minor penalties, natural justice must be followed when charges involve disputed facts, as held in State of UP v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009)

The Tribunal observed that the DA's order was cryptic, dismissing the applicant's detailed defense as "fabricated" without discussing the specific grounds raised

Similarly, the AA failed its legal obligation under Rule 25 of the D&A Rules to independently evaluate whether the findings were justified, instead affirming the penalty without application of mind

The court highlighted that the applicant’s specific allegation of bias against Respondent No. 4 was not addressed; the DA proceeded to decide the matter herself rather than referring it to another competent authority, causing prejudice

Since the applicant denied the charges and they involved disputed questions of fact regarding her specific duties, the Tribunal reasoned that the authorities acted mechanically and failed to establish the charges through cogent evidence or a fair inquiry

It quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 03.06.2020 and 28.07.2020

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the case from the stage of the applicant’s reply to the charge-sheet and to pass a fresh, well-reasoned speaking order in accordance with the law

The Original Application was partly allowed