ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“i) That, order impugned dated 20.06.2020 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Respondent no 4 may kindly be quashed and the orders impugned dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure — P/2) and dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure- P/3), passed by the Respondent no. 3 and 2 respectively, may also be quashed, in the interest of justice. ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the Appellate Courts order Annexure P/2, it would be evident that it’s a non-speaking order and without applying its mind the Appellate Authority had concorded with the findings of the disciplinary authority.

3. It was further submitted that the Appellate Authority, who is acting as a quasi-judicial authority, must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion, thus, limited his arguments for remand. In that context he placed reliance on the matter of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State while opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after recording of its full satisfaction the Appellate Courts had arrived to a conclusion that the order passed by the disciplinary authority had been passed after due consideration and cannot be faulted with, but candidly admitted that while concurring with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, no reasoning had been assigned.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the Appellate Authority, while passing an order imposing a penalty on a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. The impugned order of dismissal from services is not an administrative or executive order but it is a quasi-judicial order and therefore, must be a speaking one. On perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.

8. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.

9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self- sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion.

10. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and i