Quasi-judicial orders imposing punishment must be reasoned and speaking; failure to consider the delinquent’s reply vitiates the order.

The petitioner, a Constable, was issued a charge sheet on 11.04.2007 following a preliminary enquiry into a complaint by one Ramkrishna Tiwari.

Upon completion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the enquiry report and a show-cause notice.

On 31.10.2007, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order (Annexure P-8) imposing a punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect, stating merely that it agreed with the Enquiry Officer’s findings.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order while imposing a punishment in a departmental enquiry.

2. Whether the failure of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the delinquent's reply to the enquiry report vitiates the final order of punishment.

Quasi-judicial orders imposing punishment must be reasoned and speaking; failure to consider the delinquent’s reply vitiates the order.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Disciplinary Authority issued an order imposing a punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect, stating merely that it agreed with the Enquiry Officer’s findings.

The petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider his reply or assign specific reasons for the punishment.

Failure to consider the delinquent’s reply vitiates the order.