Order Rejecting Interim Relief Must Contain Reasons; One-Line, Non-Speaking Orders Unsustainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial order rejecting interim relief cannot be sustained if it does not record any reasons, observing that "reasons are the back bone of every order" and that a one-line, non-speaking order violates settled principles of law.[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127]

Accordingly, the Court quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, rejecting an employee's plea for interim relief and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application in accordance with law.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the writ petition challenging the CAT's order rejecting interim relief passed under Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

The court observed:

“The impugned order as extracted above makes it evident that the order is a non speaking order to reject the interim relief. No reason has been assigned for rejection of the interim relief. The case of the parties has not even been considered. It is well settled in law that a judicial order must contain the reasons. The reasons are the back bone of every order.

The impugned order is unsustainable on such ground...The Tribunal shall reconsider the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides and expeditiously, if possible on the next date i.e., 23.07.2026 and if so not possible for some justifiable reasons, the interim prayer shall be considered and decided within next one week from the date fixed positively.”

The petitioner had challenged departmental proceedings initiated pursuant to a remitting order and sought a stay of further proceedings until the Tribunal decided his Original Application. However, the CAT admitted the matter, rejected interim relief in a one-line order without assigning reasons, and issued notice to the respondents.

Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowers the disciplinary authority to remit a disciplinary case for further inquiry or fresh consideration where considered necessary.

Examining the impugned order, the Bench found that the Tribunal had rejected interim relief without recording reasons or considering the case of either party.

Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Court observed that reasons reflect due application of mind and enable the unsuccessful party to effectively challenge the decision before a higher forum. It further held that a judicial order determining the rights and liabilities of parties must disclose not only the conclusion but also the reasons supporting it.

It accordingly quashed the rejection of interim relief and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application after hearing both sides, clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 12292 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.N.S. Venkatesh

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Y. Vivekananda

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127