Lack of reasons in original quasi-judicial orders cannot be cured by a reasoned appellate order.

The Petitioner, an Assistant Grade-III in the office of Tahsildar Ambah, was suspended on 30.05.2008 and issued a charge-sheet on 03.07.2008.

His suspension was revoked on 23.06.2009. On 26.10.2009, the Collector granted subsistence allowance but denied other allowances for the suspension period, a decision later remanded by the Commissioner.

On 02.05.2011, the Collector (Disciplinary Authority) passed a fresh order (Annexure P-8) imposing a penalty of stopping two annual increments without cumulative effect and applied the "no work no pay" principle for the suspension period.

The Petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Commissioner on 28.12.2011 (Annexure P-9).

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, contending they were non-speaking and unreasoned.

1. Whether the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority qualifies as a "speaking order" as required for the exercise of quasi-judicial power.

2. Whether the lack of reasoning in an original disciplinary order can be cured by the disclosure of reasons in a subsequent appellate order.

Quasi-judicial and administrative authorities affecting the rights of parties must pass "speaking orders" supported by valid and justifiable reasons.

Executive decisions must be self-sustaining and impregnated with reasons, as held in State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016) 1 SCC 724.

Recording reasons is the "lifeblood of judicial decision-making" as asserted in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496.

The absence of reasons in an original order cannot be compensated by an appellate order, based on principles in Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537.

Upon perusal of the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 02.05.2011, the Court found it to be a non-speaking and unreasoned order that failed to objectively consider the facts and grounds mentioned in the Petitioner's reply.

The Court observed that the Authority, while exercising quasi-judicial powers, failed to record reasons for its conclusions, rendering the order arbitrary and capricious.

The Court held that the initial "blow" suffered by a non-speaking original order cannot be cured by an appellate decision.

Since the foundation (the original order) was legally unsustainable, the appellate order affirming it had "no legs to stand".

The Court directed the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner within three months and denied the Respondents any liberty to initiate fresh action against the Petitioner, noting he had retired and was 75 years old.

The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.