IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :19.02.2026 Kuldeep Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. U.M. Khan, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeshwar Oswal, Advocate for respondent No.5.

` * **

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP- 18062-2015 whereby, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 20.11.2012 absolving petitioner of the allegations of misappropriation alleged against him and reinstated in service, was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh in accordance with law on the ground that the said order was totally cryptic and non-speaking.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the Appellate Authority had decided the issue and consequently exonerated the appellant of the allegations, the learned Single Judge of this Court could not have sat in an appeal over the said order so as to treat the same as cryptic and non-speaking and therefore, the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even the Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) also challenged the said order by filing CWP-11019-2015 but the said writ petition was withdrawn by the Corporation on 16.07.2019 by giving reason that the Corporation cannot challenge an order passed by its own Appellate Authority hence, once, the said order was challenged by the Corporation and the same was withdrawn, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no locus standi with the respondents to challenge the order which was passed by the Appellate authority, which aspect has not been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. It is a settled principle of law that the Appellate Authority is required to pass a speaking order giving due reasons for its conclusion arrived at. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496. Relevant paragraph is 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 bl