Unreasoned appellate and revisional disciplinary orders violate natural justice and must be quashed.

The petitioner joined the General Reserve Engineer Force (“GREF”) as a Multi Skilled Worker on 11 January 2010.

While on sanctioned leave, he applied for resignation after his father met with an accident and subsequently joined the 221st Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”) on 27 February 2012.

His resignation from GREF was ultimately accepted on 1 November 2014 and communicated to him on 6 July 2015 through a discharge certificate.

In the meantime, CRPF initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging that he had joined CRPF without formally submitting or obtaining acceptance of his resignation from GREF.

Following a charge memorandum dated 28 March 2015, the Commandant, 221st Battalion, CRPF removed him from service by order dated 13 August 2015.

His departmental appeal was dismissed on 11 January 2016 and his revision was rejected on 21/26 June 2016.

Proceedings before the Patna High Court failed on territorial-jurisdiction grounds, leading to the present petition before the Gujarat High Court.

Whether the orders of the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority confirming the petitioner’s removal from service were legally sustainable when they merely recorded the facts and furnished no reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s challenge.

Whether the High Court should quash the unreasoned appellate and revisional orders and remand the matter for fresh consideration, without examining the merits of the disciplinary action.

The Court applied the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must record clear and intelligible reasons for their decisions, particularly when determining an employee’s statutory or service rights.

It relied on Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar, 2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 388, concerning the invalidity of cryptic and non-speaking disciplinary and appellate orders.

Moni Shankar v. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484.

S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, which holds that recording reasons is a component of natural justice, ensures application of mind, reduces arbitrariness, and facilitates appellate or judicial review.

The Court also referred to the principle that an appellate or revisional authority may adopt the reasons of the original authority only where those reasons are themselves discernible and the authority expressly or by reference indicates its agreement.

The Court found that the petitioner had placed reliance on the acceptance of his GREF resignation and discharge certificate, but the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority did not address these contentions or explain why the disciplinary authority’s decision should be upheld.

Their orders merely narrated the facts and confirmed the removal without analysing the petitioner’s defence, the effect of the subsequent acceptance of his resignation, or the grounds raised in appeal and revision.

Applying the rule that quasi-judicial decisions must disclose reasons demonstrating consideration of the material issues, the Court held that the impugned orders were non-speaking, reflected non-application of mind, and violated the principles of natural justice.

Since the defect concerned the manner of appellate and revisional decision-making, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s removal.

The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the Appellate Authority’s order dated 11 January 2016 and the Revisional Authority’s order dated 21 June 2016 as unreasoned and violative of natural justice.

The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for independent reconsideration of Appeal No. R-13-1/2015, in accordance with law, preferably within three months of receipt of the judgment.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s removal from service.