APHC010075692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3954/2025 Between: T Gangadhara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Memo No.593082/26021/34/2018-11 dated 27.01.2025, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, the above writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 15.04.1989. Subsequently, promoted to Deputy Executive Engineer on 01.09.2004 and further as Executive Engineer on 28.12.2017. While the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer at Gundlakamma Reservoir Project Division No.2, some of the employees raised slogans against the petitioner complaining of harassment. The employees also submitted complaints dated 07.08.2018 to the Superintending Engineer and Chief SRS,J W.P.No.3954 of 2025 Engineer (Projects) Ongole. Based on the said complaints, the District Collector requested the Superintending Engineer to submit a preliminary report, who in turn, submitted a preliminary report vide confidential letter No.9E dated 12.09.2018 to the District Collector, recommending the transfer of the charged employee to a faraway place. b) Thereafter, the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.688 Water Resources (Services-II) dated 03.10.2018 transferred the petitioner to Vizianagaram as Deputy Superintending Engineer for TTPR Circle, Vizianagaram. Subsequently, a charge memo, vide G.O.Rt.No.584 Water Resources (Vigilance) Department dated 27.12.2019, framing six charges, was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written defence initially on 20.01.2020. Respondent No.3 and the Superintendent Engineer, NSJC O & M Circle, Lingamuntla, were appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presiding Officer, respectively. c) Respondent No.2 concluded the inquiry and submitted para-wise replies to the government by letter dated 13.12.2023, in pursuance of which, respondent No.1, by G.O.Rt.No.172 Water Resources (Vig-III.2) Department dated 11.03.2024 (Ex.P2), imposed a major penalty of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, against the petitioner. Aggrieved by said penalty, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ex.P14) on 11.06.2024 before respondent No.4, raising several grounds. By the proceedings impugned, respondent No.4 rejected the appeal. 3. Heard Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II. 4. On 17.02.2025, when the writ petition was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to amend the cause title. 5. This Court, having noticed the order passed by the appellate authority, (bereft of reasons) directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, to get instructions from respondent No.4. Page 3 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.3954 of 2025 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II produced a copy of the instructions furnished by the Joint Secretary to the Government even though the order was passed by respondent No.4. Based on the said instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the charged officer has not produced any evidence in support of his defence, to drop the proved charges 1 to 3, against him and no new grounds were raised in the appeal. He also submitted that the appellate authority called for remarks on the appeal filed by the charged officer, from ENC (AW), who in turn submitted remarks. After considering the remarks the proceedings impugned were passed. 7. The instructions of the Joint Secretary to the Government and the contentions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader have been considered. 8. As can be seen from the copy of the appeal (Ex.P14), the petitioner apart from raising other grounds, specifically contended in ground No.2 that the Articles of Charges do not indicate the list of witnesses and in ground No.4, contended that an adequate opportunity of cross-examination was not provided. 9. The order impugned consists of three paragraphs. The second paragraph refers to the filing of the appeal and the third paragraph reflects the order, which says “after careful examination of the matter, the Government decided to reject the appeal petition filed by the petitioner, against the orders issued in the reference first cited, as there is no additional material produced”. 10. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner was adverted to, in the proceedings impugned. No reasons were assigned. 11. Time and again the Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as this Court, has been pointing out that reasons are the heart and soul of the order passed by an administrative authority, as the reasons would reflect the consideration by the authority to the pleadings and the material available on record. Page 4 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.3954 of 2025 12. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others1 the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 13. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers2 the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 14. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai3 the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 15. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India4, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, it is held as follows: “It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The 1 1990(4) SCC 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 2 (2010) 4 SCC 785 3 (2008) 15 SCC 711 4 1990(4) SCC 594 SRS,J W.P.No.3954 of 2025 594 4 rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law”. 11. At Para 35, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows. “Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by its while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi- judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the 5 order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge”. Page 6 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.3954 of 2025 16. In the instant case, as discussed supra except „three lines‟ in para No.3, no reasons were assigned by respondent No.4 while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is also a settled proposition of law that by filing counter, the authority shall not supplement its reasons. 17. In Mohinder Singh Gill Vs Chief Election Officer, New Delhi5, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under: “8. ... when the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented.” 18. Since no reasons are assigned in Ex.P1, keeping the writ petition pending for years together will not serve any purpose. 19. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed at the admission stage. The impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Memo No.593082/26021/34/2018-11 dated 27.01.2025 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.4. Learned respondent No.4 shall consider the grounds raised by petitioner in the appeal dated 11.06.2024 (Ex.P14) objectively and pass a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from receipt of a copy of this order keeping in view that the petitioner is due for retirement from service, on 30.06.2025. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date :19.02.2025 ikn 5 (1978)1 SCC 405 SRS,J W.P.No.3954 of 2025 478 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.3954 of 2025 Dated: 19.02.2025 IKN