Quasi-judicial and administrative orders affecting rights must be speaking and record clear, justifiable reasons.

The petitioner, while serving as Secretary 'B' Class at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, was suspended on 16.09.2014 and subsequently served a charge-sheet.

Despite filing a detailed reply, the disciplinary authority initiated a departmental enquiry.

Upon completion of the enquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2015, to which he submitted a comprehensive representation on 29.12.2015.

On 23.02.2016, the disciplinary authority passed an order (Annexure P/1) imposing the punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect.

The petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 09.02.2017 (Annexure P/2).

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending they were "non-speaking" and "unreasoned".

1. Whether the punishment order dated 23.02.2016 and the appellate order dated 09.02.2017 were "speaking orders" that demonstrated an application of mind to the petitioner's representation and grounds of appeal.

The court applied the principle that disciplinary and appellate authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and are legally obligated to pass speaking orders containing valid and justifiable reasons.

The court relied on State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016) 1 SCC 724, which held that administrative decisions must be self-sustaining and contain all prevailing reasons.

The court relied on Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511, which bars capricious or arbitrary decision-making.

The court cited Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, establishing that recording reasons is a component of natural justice and the "lifeblood" of judicial decision-making.

The court examined the text of the punishment order and the appellate order to determine if they met the standards of quasi-judicial scrutiny.

Regarding the disciplinary authority’s order, the court observed that while it noted the charges, it failed to record reasons or justify the conclusion in light of the petitioner’s detailed representation.

Similarly, the appellate authority's order was found to be lacking in independent application of mind to the facts and grounds raised in the appeal memo.

The court reasoned that an affected party must know how their defense was considered before a prejudicial order is passed.

The court determined that the impugned orders were not "informed and impregnated with reasons" as required by the cited precedents, rendering them arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

The respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months.

Notably, since the petitioner had already retired and was 67 years old, the court declined to grant the respondents liberty to initiate further fresh action against him.