### Quasi-judicial removal orders must be reasoned and cannot be cured by speaking appellate decisions.

The petitioner, a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police, was suspended and subsequently removed from service on 11.09.2023 following a departmental inquiry initiated due to an FIR registered against him by one Pinky Lodhi

The petitioner’s departmental appeal and subsequent mercy petition were rejected on 09.01.2024 and 25.09.2025, respectively

Notably, on 22.03.2025, the petitioner was acquitted in the corresponding criminal case (ST No. 84/2021) by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar

The petitioner challenged the removal order on the grounds that the disciplinary authority failed to provide a reasoned speaking order and failed to consider the subsequent acquittal in the criminal matter

1. Whether the disciplinary authority’s order of removal was a speaking order as required for quasi-judicial functions

2. Whether the absence of reasons in the original punishment order can be cured by the presence of reasons in the appellate or mercy petition orders

3. Whether the subsequent acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case based on the same facts necessitates fresh consideration of the punishment order

The court applied the principle that a disciplinary authority exercises quasi-judicial power and must pass a speaking order reflecting the application of mind to all facts and grounds

The court relied on M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors (2010), establishing that recording reasons is an indispensable component of natural justice and the "lifeblood of judicial decision-making"

Citing State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016), the court emphasized that administrative/executive decisions must be self-sustaining and impregnated with reasons

Per Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd vs. Union Of India (2010) and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna (1986), the court held that the absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosures in the appellate order

The Court observed that the punishment order dated 11.09.2023 merely stated that the petitioner’s reply was "unsatisfactory" without assigning specific reasons for rejecting the grounds raised or for imposing the maximum penalty of removal

The Court determined that the order was "non-speaking and unreasoned," failing the test of transparency and fairness

It rejected the State’s contention that the appellate order cured this defect, noting that a blow suffered by the initial decision due to breach of procedure cannot be rectified through an overall substitute in appeal

Regarding the procedural lapse of the petitioner’s counsel in not formally amending the prayer to challenge the appellate and mercy orders, the Court exercised its discretion to overlook the technicality in the interest of justice to avoid further delay

The matter was relegated back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration; the disciplinary authority is mandated to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereafter, specifically considering the impact of the criminal acquittal and affording the petitioner a personal hearing