APHC010041072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION No:2396/2026 Between: 1. NOUNDRU SWAMY SATYANARAYANA, , S/O. N. RAMA MURTHY, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC PRESENTLY WORKING AS CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR, O/O. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WEAPONS, BUILDING NO. 14, KRISHNA GATE, SHIP BUILDING CENTRE, NAVAL BASE POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 014 ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 010. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEADQUARTERS, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VESSELS PROGRAMME (ATVP), AKANKSHA DEVELOPMENT ENCLAVE. OPP. RAO TULA RAM MARG, NEW DELHI-110 010. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SHIP BUILDING CENTRE, VARUNA BLOCK GODAVARI GATE, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 014. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders dated 23.04.2025 (made ready on 29.08.2025) in O.A.No.020/ -2- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J 0184/2017 on the file of the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal and quash and set aside the final order dated 23.04.2025, as being arbitrary, non-speaking, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to settled law and Consequently direct the Respondents to pay all consequential benefits including to refix the pay of the Petitioner by restoring the pay reduced under the penalty order dated 18.10.2012, granting restoration of the annual increments withheld during the penalty period, and treating the penalty as without cumulative effect, strictly in accordance with Rule 11(iii)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and DoP and T O.M. dated 06.02.2014 and Direct the Respondents to grant all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of pay, allowances, recalculation of pensionary benefits, and interest at such rate as this Honble Court deems fit and Pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to provisionally refix the pay of the Petitioner by restoring the withheld increments and reduced pay, subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S S VARMA(SR PANEL COUNSEL CENT GOVT) The Court made the following: -3- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 2396 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta) 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.04.2025 (made ready on 29.08.2025) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (Circuit Bench at Vijayawada) [shall be referred to as „the Tribunal‟ hereinafter], in OA/020/184/2017, whereby the Hon‟ble Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the matter is that the petitioner was suspended by the 3rd respondent, vide order dated 07.06.2012 under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and the said suspension was revoked vide order dated 23.08.2012. Subsequently, in pursuance of the charge memorandum dt.07.09.2012 and upon considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 22.09.2012, the 3rd respondent imposed a minor penalty of reduction by two lower stages for a period of three years in the existing Pay Scale/ Pay Band under Rule 11(iii) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, vide order dt.18.10.2012. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed O.A./020/0047/2014 before the Hon‟ble Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dt.24.11.2014 quashing and setting aside the order dt.18.10.2012 and order dt.02.02.2013 with a -4- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J direction to the respondents to modify the penalty imposed vide order dt.18.10.2012 to that of a reduction by one stage instead of two stages. The 3rd respondent, vide order dt.08.09.2015 imposed penalty of reduction by one lower stage for a period of three years in existing Pay Band with immediate effect on the petitioner under Rule 11(iii) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rues, 1965 with further orders that the applicant will not earn his increment of pay during the period of reduction and the reduction will not have effect of postponing his future increment of pay and that suspension period shall be treated as duty. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, who also issued orders on the same line of the 3rd respondent without appreciating DOP&T Office Memorandum dt.06.02.2014. Aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner approached the Hon‟ble Tribunal in the O.A. with the following reliefs: ".......to call for the records pertaining to Order dated 08.09.2015 and Order No.3201/DISC/NSS, 1/M/012/ ATVP/Pers, dated 26.05.2016 and declare the action of the 2nd & 3rd respondent in not restoring the reduced pay of a lower stage and three increments pertaining to the penalty period, which was a minor penalty as illegal, arbitrary, and set aside the said orders to the extent of denial of the said benefits and accordingly direct the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant that was reduced at the time of commencing the penalty on completion of the penalty, and grant three annual increments which were not drawn during the period of the penalty and accordingly draw and release the pay and allowances pertaining to the period of suspension with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” -5- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J 3. At the outset, on a perusal of the order, it appears to us that the Hon‟ble Tribunal has recorded the plea of the learned counsel and also noted the DOP&T office memorandum, dt.06.02.2014, which was placed before him. But the Hon‟ble Tribunal dismissed and disposed of the O.A. with a finding in paragraph 5 as follows: “5. It is to be noted that, the earlier punishment imposed on the applicant is modified. The said pay has been fixed as per the direction of this Tribunal in O.A. No.47/2014. It is also to be noted that after the restoration of his pay after the currency period, he has been given the pay fixation in accordance with the 7th CPC. The detailed calculation sheet was also filed by the respondents vide order dt.21.11.2024.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal is without any basis and no reason has been assigned by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in dismissing the O.A. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State Project Director, UP Education for all Project Board & Ors.,v. Saroj Maurya & Ors.1, and in the case of CCT v. Shukla & Bros.2, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that while deciding a case, assigning reasons is mandatory and cardinal principle of the rule of law. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal. 1 (Civil Appeal No.3465 of 2023 decided on 21.08.2024) 2 (2010) 4 SCC 785 -6- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J 5. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the Hon‟ble Tribunal has not expressed any reason in disposing of the O.A. 6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has remanded back the matter on the ground that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is in the absence of any reasoning. 7. After thorough consideration of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner pleaded that when the minor penalty is imposed without cumulative effect, the Government servant is entitled to get restoration of the pay that was reduced at the time of commencing the penalty on completion of penalty, duly restoring the three annual increments which were not drawn during the period of penalty. In this regard, paragraph 3(A) of the DOP & T OM No.6/3/2013-Estt. (Pay- 1), dt.06.02.2014 and the case 1 & 2 of the Annexure to the above OM dt.06.02.2014 is relevant, the Hon‟ble Tribunal, while passing the order impugned, has not considered the plea of the petitioner and also the office memorandum of DOP & T, dt.06.02.2014. 8. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal. The Hon‟ble Tribunal has not assigned any reasons as to why the Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) is not applicable to the -7- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J case of the petitioner. Moreover, the order passed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal is on the basis of other perspective to that of the pleadings and arguments advanced by the petitioner. 9. In judicial determination, when parties approach a judicial authority in India, the authority must decide the issue in the adversarial system, which means that the judicial authority shall determine the issue based on the pleadings and submissions advanced by the respective parties. In deciding such issues, the reasoning is a prime factor which can only reflects the mind of a judge as to why he accept or did not accept the contention of a party. Without assigning any reason, if judicial authority pronounced a judgment, the said judgment suffers illegality. A litigant approaching a judicial authority has a legitimate expectation to know the reasons for rejection of his claim. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CCT v. Shukla & Bros., (supra2) has categorically deprecated the practice of deciding cases without assigning reasons. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted herein below: “23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/ prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts. 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the -8- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons. 26. Our procedural law and the established practice, in fact, imposes unqualified obligation upon the courts to record reasons. There is hardly any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself requiring recording of reasons in the judgments but it is no more res integra and stands unequivocally settled by different judgments of this Court holding that the courts and tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/orders. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the court should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviously should be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing a decree of the court. 27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] there are apt observations in this regard to say "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove." 10. In the present case, it appears to this Court that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as it is passed without any reasoning. 11. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Hon‟ble Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The -9- W.P. No.2396 of 2026 DEV, J & SS, J Hon‟ble Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both parties, as early as possible, most preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. (supra2). 12. Under the above observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.09.02.2026 BV