ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- ^^7-1 ;g fd] vihy esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 5-3-2012 ,oa foÒkxh; tk¡p esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-11-2010 fujLr djus dh Ñik djsaA 7-2 ;g fd] çkFkÊ d¢ fgr esa vU; d¨Ã lgk;rk g¨ mls çnku djsaA** 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to imposing the major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the reply dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P/20). It is further submitted that without dealing with the facts and grounds raised in the said reply, a non-speaking and unreasoned order imposing the impugned major punishment was passed by order dated 24.11.2010. This aspect was also not considered by the appellate Authority, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 5.3.2012. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellate Authority duly considered each and every fact mentioned in the appeal memo and passed a reasoned and speaking order/ appeal rejection order dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has also examined the entire record and on perusal of the material, the order of the competent authority was affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present matter and petition prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the only scope of interference in the cases of punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is conducted. In the present case the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in view of the norms of natural justice and fair play. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also relied upon the order dated 23.7.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors. in W.P.No.6668/2010. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also relied upon the order dated 23.7.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors. in W.P.No.6668/2010. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Important part of the punishment order dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure P/28) is quoted herein below:- ^^dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad 1640@fo- tka@2010 fnukad 7-8-2010 d¢ vuqlkj vipkjh deZpkjh Jh panuflag Ò`R; d¨ tk¡p çfrosnu dh çfr nh tkdj 15 fnol esa vH;kosnu çLrqr dj viuk cpko i{k j[kus gsrq le; fn;k x;k ftld¢ lacaèk esa vipkjh deZpkjh us viuk vH;kosnu fnukad 20-8-2010 d¨ çLrqr fd;kA vr% Jh panuflag Ò`R; }kjk çLrqr vH;kosnu vekU; fd;k tkdj foÒkxh; tk¡p vfèkdkjh }kjk çLrqr çfrosnu vuqlkj vipkjh deZpkjh d¢ vkj¨i çekf.kr ik, x,A Jh panuflag Ò`R;] jktLo e.My] eè; çns'k] Xokfy;j ij vfèkj¨fir vkj¨i fl) ik, tkus d¢ dkj.k Jh panuflag Ò`R; dh n¨ osruo`f) e-ç- flfoy lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1966 d¢ fu;e 14 dh dafMdk d¢ rgr lap;h çÒko ls j¨d¢ tkus d¢ n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fuyacu dkj.k¨a d¨ ns; LoRo¨a dk Òqxrku lfgr lÒh ç;¨tu gsrq lsok vofèk ekU; dh tkrh gSA^^ 6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.11.2010, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while passing an order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, is exercising quasi judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. The Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its conclusion. 7. On perusal of the punishment 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 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 impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:- “7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445 , Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 , Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 , B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 ”. 11. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. 11. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant subparagraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:- 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (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 lifeblood 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 important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. 12. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and unreasoned order, therefore, in absence of reason in the punishment order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order, therefore, the argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the appellate order is reasoned and speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:- "41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:- "41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out below 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 quasijudicial 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 important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order. 43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and others, (1986) 4 SCC 537 , it has been held: "......after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may result in refund of the money or restitution of the property, with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the original proceeding." 44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show cause notice as also the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the third respondent. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show cause notice as also the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the third respondent. In view of that, the appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is quashed." 13. The order passed in the case of Vishwanath Dubey (supra) is based on different facts and is not applicable to the present case. 14. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned punishment order dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure P/28) and appeal rejection order dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P/1). 15. Consequently, respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and as petitioner has already retired on 30.6.2023, therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner. 16. With aforesaid observations and directions, present petition is disposed of.