ORDER

1. With the consent of parties, finally heard.

2. The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the punishment order dated 16.7.2021 (Annexure P-1).

3. It is pointed out that petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 18.1.2021 (Annexure P-2). In turn, petitioner filed his reply dated 11.2.2021 (Annexure P-3) and denied the allegations and submitted his defence on merits. The disciplinary authority by order dated 16.7.2021 (Annexure P-1) opined that petitioner in his defence could not produce any solid evidence and therefore, the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect is imposed. By placing reliance on the judgment of O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 180, it is submitted that in a case of this nature, the departmental enquiry should have been conducted.

4. Shri Deepak Sahu and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the other side opposed the prayer on the twin grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has statutory remedy of departmental appeal. Secondly, the petitioner defence has been considered while passing the punishment order dated 16.7.2021. Shri Singh placed reliance on (2008) 2 SCC 41 (U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon).

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. A conjoint reading of show cause notice and the reply shows that petitioner has denied the allegations and put-forth his defence on merits. The said defence was not accepted. Instead, the disciplinary authority opined that petitioner could not produce ‘solid evidence’ in his defence. Needless to emphasize that in the departmental enquiry also, the burden lies on the shoulder of the prosecution to prove the charges. If that primary burden is discharged by the department in accordance with law then only the employee is required to show his innocence. The impugned order does not contain any reason whatsoever as to why defence taken by petitioner in his reply is not found trustworthy. ‘Reasons’ are held to be heart beat of ‘conclusions’.

8. The apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial function/order. The relevant portion reads as under:-

47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is i