IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17362 OF 2001 Date:02-12-2010 Between:- S.Subramanyam .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Revenue Department and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner, a driver in the service of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (T.T.D.), Tirupathi, was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect under proceedings dated 23-06-1995. He appealed to the Board of Trustees of the temple but the same was dismissed under proceedings dated 09-09-1998. His second appeal to the Government of Andhra Pradesh was also rejected under Memo dated 29-05-2001. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on three charges under charge sheet dated 28-11-1994, relating to his driving the bus bearing No.ATC 5762 on 16-07-1994 carelessly as a result of which a pilgrim met with his death. An enquiry was instituted into the matter and the enquiry report, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner to be duly proved, was communicated to him along with the second show cause notice dated 16-04-1995. After considering his representation dated 24-07-1995, the proceedings dated 23-06-1995 were issued by the T.T.D. visiting upon him the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. The said proceedings demonstrate that the prescribed procedure was duly followed in all respects. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders passed by the appellate authorities thereafter did not do justice to his client as no reasons are forthcoming therefrom. It is no doubt true that neither the appellate order passed by the Board of Trustees of the T.T.D. nor the second appellate order passed by the Government of A.P. disclose reasons. Quasi judicial authorities are required to couch their decisions with sufficient reasons so as to demonstrate proper consideration of the cases before them. As pointed out by the supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jah Vs. State of Bihar[1], reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. However, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that these authorities are not legally trained to pass orders on par with Courts. Therefore, they cannot be expected to write their orders with legal finesse. The appeal dated 11- 08-1995 filed by the petitioner before the Board of Trustees of the T.T.D. is produced and reflects that the very same grounds which were raised by him before the disciplinary authority were reiterated. No fresh grounds were taken by the petitioner in the said appeal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter to the appellate authority at this late stage only on the ground that no reasons are forthcoming in the appellate orders as the appeals merely reiterated the issues which had already been considered by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authorities chose to confirm the same by affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority. Though in the normal circumstances, this court would be inclined to remit the matter to either of the appellate authorities, the same is not called for in view of the above circumstances. Further, the action of the T.T.D. in imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect cannot be said to be disproportionate to the carelessness alleged and proved against him. Viewed thus, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner does not warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 2nd December 2010. AMD [1] (2003) 11 SCC 579