The importance of recording reasons in administrative decisions, the need for reasoned decisions based on relevant facts, and the requirement to assign reasonings after application of mind by the Authorities in passing the orders.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shr Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

With the consent matter is heard finally.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18-6-2016 passed by the respondent No. 3, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated. Appeal filed against the same has been dismissed vide order dated 26-2-2016 by a non-speaking order and a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that he has misbehaved with the Accountant and he has not sent the C.R.A. within time.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Office Assistant Grade-III in Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti, Sidhi and after abolition of the said society, the services of the petitioner were merged with M.P. State Electricity Board vide order dated 13-8-2010 and thereafter with M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company vide order dated 27-11-2012. The petitioner was working at Distribution Centre Amiliya under the control of respondent No. 4. A show cause notice dated 31-7-2015 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he has not deposited C.R.A. within time as well as he has misbehaved with the Accountant. The reply to the aforesaid show cause notice was submitted on 28-12-2015 denying all the charges which were levelled against the petitioner. The Authorities without considering the reply filed by the petitioner has passed the impugned order on 26-2-2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order dated 26-2-2016 by impugned order dated 18-6-2016 (Annexure P-1) which is a non-speaking order. The order does not reflect any consideration of the grounds which are raised in the appeal. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 and has argued that the reasons are heart beat of the orders as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and order dated 18-6-2016 (Annexure P-1) does not reflect that there was any consideration or application of mind by the Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, the petitioner is praying for quashment of the order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by filing its return has denied all the averments of the writ petition and has supported the impugned orders contending therein that a minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect. The opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, as show cause notice dated 31-7-2015 was issued to him and the same was duly responded by him and after considering the same, order dated 26-2-2016 was passed by the Authorities. Specific allegations were levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice that he has misbehaved with the Authorities and has also not sent the C.R.A. in time. No justifiable reason could be pointed out by the petitioner in the reply, therefore, the Authority is taking lenient view in the matter and imposed the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect. It is further contended that the reply to the show cause notice is silent upon the fact that the petitioner has misbehaved with the Authorities as the show cause notice clearly reflects the aforesaid allegations. In such circumstances, no interference is called for. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India, (Civil Appeal No. 3687/2020) decided on 16-11-2020 wherein it