Reasons Are 'Soul of Justice': Disciplinary Order Quashed for Being Non-Speaking, Even if Penalty Imposed Didn't Mandate Formal Inquiry: Allahabad High Court - 2025-07-10

Non-Speaking Order Violates Natural Justice, Allahabad HC Quashes Bank Employee's Punishment

ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad High Court has quashed a disciplinary order against a bank employee, holding that an unreasoned, non-speaking order violates the principles of natural justice, even if the punishment ultimately imposed did not statutorily require a full-fledged formal inquiry.

In a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.J.Munir , the court emphasized that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must provide cogent reasons for their conclusions. "Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations," the court observed, describing reason as the "soul of justice."

The court set aside the order dated February 28, 2023, which had imposed a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect on Ranjeet Kumar , a clerk at the District Cooperative Bank Limited in Bareilly.

---

Case Background

The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar , was a clerk-cum-cashier at the Meerganj Branch of the District Cooperative Bank, Bareilly. Following an incident of alleged cash shortage and complaints of borrowing money from a customer and being absent without authorization, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was suspended and served a charge sheet containing three distinct charges. The petitioner denied all allegations.

An inquiry was conducted, and the bank's Committee of Management, through the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, imposed the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.

---

Arguments in Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that the entire disciplinary proceeding was flawed because the bank failed to conduct a proper inquiry. Key contentions included: - No witnesses were produced by the bank to be cross-examined by the petitioner. - No specific date, time, or place was fixed for leading evidence, denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself. - The final punishment order was non-speaking and did not contain any reasoning for holding the charges as proved.

The respondents, representing the bank, argued that the petitioner was given multiple show-cause notices and opportunities for personal hearings at various stages, which satisfied the procedural requirements.

---

Court's Legal Analysis: Procedure vs. Reason

The High Court undertook a two-fold analysis of the petitioner's claims.

1. The Procedural Requirement for Inquiry

The court first examined the procedural lapse. It noted that the bank had initiated the inquiry as if for a major penalty, which would necessitate a formal inquiry with evidence and cross-examination. However, the court then turned to Regulation 84 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies' Employees Service Regulations, 1975 .

This regulation uniquely classifies penalties. Major penalties like dismissal or removal require a full "recourse to disciplinary proceedings." In contrast, penalties like "withholding of increment" (even with cumulative effect) are not listed as major and only require a show-cause notice under Regulation 84(iii).

Since the final punishment awarded fell into the lesser category, the court concluded that the failure to hold a formal inquiry was not a fatal procedural breach under the specific regulations. "For the penalty actually awarded... there was indeed no breach of procedure," Justice Munir noted.

2. The Mandate for a Reasoned Order

Despite finding no procedural breach for the specific penalty, the court found merit in the petitioner's second argument: the lack of reasons in the impugned order. The court held this to be a critical and fatal flaw.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Basudev Dutta v. State of W.B. and others , the High Court underscored that every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons.

"A perusal of the impugned order in this case shows that though the order does speak a lot of the various steps of procedure... there is no mention by as much as a whisper of how the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer... or for that matter, the real decision maker, the Committee of Management of the Bank, considered the charges, the petitioner's defence against these and by what reasoning did they conclude all the charges proved against the petitioner."

The court described the order's silence on the merits as "critical" and a clear violation of natural justice, rendering it unsustainable in law.

---

Final Verdict and Directions

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order of punishment dated February 28, 2023.

The matter was remanded back to the bank's disciplinary authority to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after giving the petitioner a renewed opportunity of hearing. The court further directed that in the fresh proceedings, a punishment higher than what was previously imposed cannot be awarded.