Quasi-Judicial Appellate Orders Must Be Reasoned and Speaking to Satisfy Principles of Natural Justice

The petitioner, an employee of the State, was subjected to a departmental inquiry resulting in an order dated 27.04.2022, which imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Annexure P/7

The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 22.08.2022 via a brief order (Annexure P/2), stating that the punishment was proportionate given the petitioner's unauthorized absence during the COVID-19 pandemic and his travel out of state without permission

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging the appellate order was non-speaking and unreasoned

1. Whether the Appellate Authority exercised its quasi-judicial power in a reasonable and rational manner by passing a speaking order

2. Whether an administrative or quasi-judicial order affecting the rights of a party must contain justifiable reasons to satisfy the principles of natural justice

The court applied the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must pass "speaking orders" that demonstrate due application of mind through justifiable reasons

State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016) 1 SCC 724, which held that administrative decisions must be self-sustaining and not capricious or arbitrary

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, which establishes that recording reasons is an indispensable component of the decision-making process and "the soul of justice"

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178 regarding unauthorized absence

The Court observed that while the Appellate Authority is vested with discretionary power, such power must be exercised with due diligence

Upon perusing the impugned order dated 22.08.2022, the Court found it lacked the characteristics of a speaking order

The Court reasoned that an affected party has a right to know how their defense was considered, and the "face of an order... must speak" rather than being "inscrutable"

By failing to address the specific grounds raised in the petitioner's detailed appeal and instead passing a summary rejection, the Appellate Authority failed to meet the threshold of a reasoned decision-making process required by the rule of law

The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh detailed appeal within three weeks, and ordered the Appellate Authority to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months, after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing