Termination representations must be decided by a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant challenged the MCD order dated 13 June 2025 terminating his services, alleging that he was terminated without a show-cause notice or disciplinary proceedings.

He also claimed discriminatory treatment and sought reinstatement, back pay with interest, and other reliefs, relying on Sandeep Kumar v. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology and Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The applicant had made representations dated 19 June, 4 August, and 9 September 2025, which had not been decided when he filed the Original Application on 6 October 2025.

With the parties’ consent, the Tribunal disposed of the matter without examining its merits.

1. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the legality of the applicant’s termination before the respondents had considered his pending representations.

2. Whether the applicant should be permitted to submit a further representation and obtain a reasoned decision from the competent authority.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal did not decide any substantive rule governing termination, natural justice, or discriminatory treatment.

Although the applicant cited Sandeep Kumar and Rajendra Yadav, the Tribunal made no findings on those authorities or on the merits of the termination challenge.

It instead directed consideration of the applicant’s representations and required a reasoned and speaking order.

Because the applicant’s representations were still pending, and the parties consented to disposal without a merits determination, the Tribunal did not assess whether the termination was lawful or whether the cited precedents applied.

It provided a procedural avenue for the applicant to submit a comprehensive further representation and required the competent authority to decide the representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

It granted the applicant liberty to file a comprehensive representation within one week of receiving the order and directed the competent authority to consider all representations, including any additional one, and issue a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks of receiving the additional representation.

No order as to costs was made.