JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment as contained in Memo No.274/Ra. Ka. dated 02.02.2010 issued by respondent No.2; whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 02.02.2010. The petitioner has further assailed the appellate order as contained in Memo No.1572/Sa. Sha dated 30.12.2010, passed by respondent No.3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the memorial filed by the petitioner was also rejected.

3. Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the appellate order (Annexure-9) and submits that the appellate authority has not given any reason, whatsoever, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has filed an extensive appeal raising several grounds before the appellate authority but the appellate authority, in a cursory manner, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

Ms. Pandey fairly submits the appellate authority should re-visit its order and pass a fresh order after giving reasons and considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.

4. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent State supports the impugned order of the termination and further submits that there is no procedural irregularity; however, he could not satisfy this Court with respect to the appellate order which prima facie appears to be a non-speaking and non reasoned order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that the department has followed the procedure in terminating the petitioner; as such this is not a case of procedural irregularity.

However, after perusing the appellate order it appears that the appellate authority has simply referred about the inquiry report and the impugned order and held that he is satisfied with the finding of the disciplinary authority; but not even in a single line, he has given any opinion on the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. From record it further appears that the petitioner has filed a detailed representation containing several grounds; however, none of the grounds have been taken care of by the appellate authority.

6. The highlighting need of reasons in any order is condition precedent. Reference in this regard may be made to the landmark judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in the case of Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union & Ors. reported in (1971) 1 ALL ER 1148) in which the Court observed that giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.

Relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted herein below:

“…… It is now well settled that a statutory body, which is entrusted by statute with a discretion, must act fairly. It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as administrative on the other hand, or what you will. Still it must act fairly. It must, in a proper case, give a party a chance to be heard : see Re K (H)(an infant) per Lord Parker CJ in relation to immigration officers; and R v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex parte Benaim by us in relation to the gaming board. The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That is established by Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is a landmark in modern administrative law."

Further, in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri A