Natural Justice | Non-Speaking Orders in Service Matters Violate Principles of Natural Justice: AP HC Sets Aside CAT Order

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has underscored the fundamental principle that judicial and quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders, containing reasoned decisions. In a recent judgment, the Court set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal order rejecting interim relief solely on the ground that it was non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice and necessitating reconsideration with proper reasoning.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, A Rajasekhar Gowd, an Office Superintendent in the Income Tax Department at Tirupati, faced departmental proceedings under Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules). The disciplinary authority, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati, passed a remitting order vide F.No. ARSGA/ig/PCIT/TPT/2025-2026 dated 20.11.2025, initiating proceedings against the petitioner.

Key Facts

• The petitioner holds the post of Office Superintendent in the Income Tax Department.
• Departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
• The petitioner challenged the proceedings by filing Original Application No. 424 of 2026 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad (Telangana).
• Alongside the OA, the petitioner sought interim relief, praying for a stay on further departmental proceedings pending adjudication of his case.

Procedural History

• 20.11.2025: Remitting order passed by the 3rd respondent under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
• Date of OA filing (not specified): Petitioner filed OA No. 424 of 2026 before CAT, Hyderabad, challenging the departmental proceedings.
• 23.04.2026: CAT rejected the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief through a non-speaking order.
• Post 23.04.2026: Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition No. 12292 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the CAT’s order.
• 23.07.2026: CAT listed the matter for completion of pleadings.

The Parties' Positions

Petitioner’s Contentions

• The CAT’s order dated 23.04.2026 was non-speaking, failing to provide any reasons for rejecting the interim relief.
• The order violated principles of natural justice, as it did not afford the petitioner an opportunity to understand the basis of the rejection.
• The petitioner sought stay of departmental proceedings pending adjudication of his OA before the CAT.

Respondent’s Contentions

• The respondents argued that the CAT had already fixed a short date (23.07.2026) for completion of pleadings, implying that the matter would be expeditiously heard.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. Quashing of the CAT’s order dated 23.04.2026 rejecting interim relief, on the ground that it was non-speaking and arbitrary.
2. Stay of all further departmental proceedings pursuant to the remitting order dated 20.11.2025 until the CAT adjudicates the OA.
3. Direction to the CAT to reconsider the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law, with proper reasoning.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a non-speaking order rejecting interim relief in departmental proceedings violates principles of natural justice and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner’s counsel, Sri A.N.S. Venkatesh, argued that the CAT’s order was non-speaking, providing no reasons for rejecting the interim relief.
• He contended that such orders are arbitrary and violate the right to a reasoned decision, a cornerstone of natural justice.
• Reliance was placed on settled judicial precedents, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, which emphasize that orders must be reasoned to ensure fairness and transparency.

For the Respondent

• The respondents’ counsel, Sri Y. Vivekananda, submitted that the CAT had fixed a short date (23.07.2026) for completion of pleadings, implying that the matter would be heard expeditiously.
• He argued that the High Court should not interfere at this stage, as the CAT would reconsider the interim relief prayer on the next date.

The Court's Analysis

The Court critically examined the CAT’s order dated 23.04.2026, which read as follows:

“Heard Mr.ANS Venkatesh, learned counsel for the applicant. Admit Interim Relief, as sought in the O.A., is rejected. Issue notice to the respondents. Four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file a reply in the matter. List the case, on 23.07.2026, before the Registrar’s Court, for completion of pleadings. A copy of today’s order to be sent to the respondents through email, to enable them to file reply, to support speedy adjudication and disposal.”

The Court observed that the order was non-speaking, as it provided no reasons for rejecting the prayer for interim relief. The Court emphasized that reasons are the backbone of any judicial or quasi-judicial order, citing the following principles:

1. Natural Justice: The right to a reasoned order is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. An order lacking reasons deprives the affected party of the opportunity to understand the basis of the decision, thereby violating the principles of fairness and transparency.
2. Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on the well-settled position that non-speaking orders are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It noted that even interim orders must contain brief reasons to ensure accountability and fairness.
3. Remedy Under Article 226: The High Court, under Article 226, has the power to interfere where an order is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of natural justice. The Court held that the CAT’s order fell squarely within this category.

The Court further directed that the CAT reconsider the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law, affording both parties an opportunity of hearing. It emphasized that the reconsideration should be done expeditiously, preferably on the next date (23.07.2026) or within one week thereafter.

The Verdict

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the non-speaking part of the CAT’s order dated 23.04.2026, which had rejected the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief. The Court directed the CAT to reconsider the interim relief prayer with proper reasoning, affording both parties an opportunity of hearing. The reconsideration was to be done expeditiously, preferably on 23.07.2026 or within one week thereafter.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and made no order as to costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Non-Speaking Orders Are Arbitrary and Unenforceable

• This judgment reinforces the principle that all judicial and quasi-judicial orders, including interim orders, must be speaking orders.
• Practitioners should challenge non-speaking orders under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, as they violate principles of natural justice.
• Tribunals and lower courts must ensure that even interim orders contain brief reasons to avoid being set aside on this ground alone.

Opportunity of Hearing Is Non-Negotiable

• The Court emphasized that both parties must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before rejecting interim relief.
• This judgment serves as a reminder that procedural fairness is as critical as substantive justice, and tribunals must adhere to it strictly.

Expeditious Reconsideration Is Mandatory

• Where an order is set aside for being non-speaking, the Court or tribunal must reconsider the matter expeditiously.
• Practitioners can seek directions for early hearing in such cases to avoid undue delay in justice delivery.