IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of providing reasons in administrative decisions is crucial for ensuring justice and accountability.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure P-2), whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 30.04.2019 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the other grounds which have been taken in the present writ petition, one of the ground to challenge the order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure P- 2) passed by the Appellate Authority is that the same is cryptic and non-speaking order as none of the points raised in the appeal has been considered. He submits that the said order is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents could not justify the passing of the impugned order by the Appellate Authority which is totally cryptic and non-speaking.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.

5. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and show cause notice dated 03.09.1986 (Annexure P-6) was issued to the petitioner under Rule 10 of the said Rules. Rule 19 of the said Rules, deals with “Consideration of Appeal”, which reads as under:

“19. Consideration of appeal:

(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 4 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.

(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing of the penalties specified in rule 5 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider:

(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice.

(b) whether the findings of the punishing authority are warranted by the evidence on the record.

(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate or severe; and pass orders:

(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty.

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

Provided that:

(i) the Commission shall be consulted in all cases where such consultation is necessary.

(ii) to (iv) XXXX XXXX XXXX”

6. I have perused the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Appellate Authority. The concluding Para of the same reads as under:

“After considering all the facts of the case, the Appellate Committee decided to confirm the punishment given by the then Managing Director.”

7. Perusal of the order reproduced above would show that none of the points raised by the petitioner in his detailed appeal dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure P-23) running into 25 pages, has been considered by the Appellate Authority.

8. The respondent/authorities were under legal obligation to assign cogent reasons while passing the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure P-2) so that this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, may be in a position to know as to what were the reasons weighing in the mind of the authority, while passing the impugned order. It is so said because the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. Since the horizon of natural justice has been constantly expanding in the recent past, hardly any visible distinction is left in the functioning of the administrative and quasi-jud