Disciplinary Orders Must Show 'Real Consideration' Of Employee's Defence, Not Mechanically Recite “Considered”: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely reciting in the disciplinary order and the appellate order that the records have been “considered” could not be treated as a valid and objective consideration in the legal sense, and was an empty formality.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that since penalty order and appellate order caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and adversely impacted his future promotions, the reasons to arrive at a particular conclusion were bound to be part of the orders and not just be present in the note-sheets of the officials.

“The disciplinary authority is under a legal obligation to apply its independent and judicious mind to the entire material on record, including the specific points of defence raised by the delinquent. Such consideration must be reflected from the penalty order itself, by way of cogent reasons indicating as to why the explanation or defence has been accepted or rejected.”

The Court was hearing a petition challenging a disciplinary order as well as an appellate order that upheld the order, wherein penalty was imposed on the petitioner, who was working at Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (“JVVNL”).

It was the case of the petitioner that the penalty was imposed and upheld without considering the defence put forth by him in reply to the charge-sheet. It was submitted that bare perusal of the order would clarify that the same was passed ignoring the contents of his defence and without analysing the fact verification report.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that the penalty order clearly made a recital that the penalty was imposed after careful consideration of the relevant record and fact verification. Hence, it could not be said that the defence and other relevant material was not considered by the disciplinary authorities.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani which ruled that “consider” meant active application of mind as well as thinking over, pondering and weighing the relevant material.

In this light, it was held that by looking at the orders, it was clear that the petitioner's reply or the relevant record was not discussed, weighed and analysed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. Further, no reason was assigned to arrive at the conclusion of petitioner's guilt.

“Hence, such alleged consideration cannot be said to be consideration in legal sense and mere using the words that the record, reply etc. has been considered is merely an empty formality and eye wash on the part of disciplinary authority and appellate authority.”

The Court also rejected the argument by the State that the reasons may not be reflected in so many words in the order but were clearly mentioned in the note sheets of the concerned officials. It was held that such reasons being prejudicial in nature, had to be part of the disciplinary and appellate order.

It was also observed that while defending the challenged orders, State was bound to rely only on the contents of those orders, and could not be allowed to supplement the same by any other material which was not supplied to the delinquent.

“A penalty order passed in a summary proceedings, if bereft of reasons or containing only a bald recital of conclusions, gives rise to a legitimate apprehension that the authority has acted mechanically or with a predetermined mind… The absence of reasons in a minor penalty order, passed after a summary procedure, thus vitiates the decision making process and renders the order vulnerable to the judicial scrutiny, as it fails to disclose a fair, transparent and rational basis for imposition of penalty.”

In this background it was observed that an order which merely recorded the conclusion of guilt without analysing the defence, was inherently vague, cryptic, and reflected non-application of mind. The gravity or seriousness of the charges could not be invoked as a justification to dispense with the requirement of recording reasons.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the disciplinary order as well as the appellate order were set aside.

Title: Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 26

Click Here To Read/Download Order