Quasi-judicial punishment and appellate orders must be speaking orders supported by recorded reasons.

The Petitioner was serving as an ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) at the District Hospital, Morar.

She was suspended and issued a charge-sheet alleging negligence and dereliction of duty regarding an incident on April 25, 2017, where a pregnant woman was allegedly denied admission, leading to delivery under a tree and the subsequent death of the newborn

Following an inquiry, the Collector (Respondent No. 3) passed an order on July 26, 2017, imposing a punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect

The Petitioner’s appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Gwalior, was rejected on October 9, 2017

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that both the disciplinary and appellate orders were non-speaking and failed to consider the grounds raised in her defense

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders imposing and upholding the punishment were "speaking orders" that recorded valid and justifiable reasons in support of their conclusions

2. Whether the exercise of quasi-judicial power by the authorities was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice regarding reasoned decisions

The Court applied the principle that authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers must pass "speaking orders" that demonstrate an application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case

administrative decisions must be self-sustaining and impregnated with reasons to avoid being capricious or arbitrary (State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016) 1 SCC 724)

recording reasons is an indispensable component of the decision-making process and the "lifeblood of judicial decision-making" (Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496)

The Court perused the impugned punishment order dated July 26, 2017, and the appellate order dated October 9, 2017. It observed that while the Disciplinary Authority found the Petitioner’s reply "unsatisfactory," it failed to assign specific reasoning or justify the conclusion based on the evidence

Similarly, the Appellate Authority, despite narrating the incident, did not objectively consider the grounds mentioned in the Petitioner's appeal memo

The Court reasoned that an order affecting the rights of a party must "speak" so the affected party knows how their defense was considered

By failing to provide a rational nexus between the facts and the conclusion, the authorities exercised their discretion without due diligence, rendering the orders legally unsustainable under the standards set by the Supreme Court

Consequently, the Court set aside the punishment order dated July 26, 2017, and the appellate order dated October 9, 2017

The Respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner within three months

However, the Court granted the Respondents liberty to initiate fresh action against the Petitioner in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of with these directions