HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16393 of 2006 Date: November 22, 2010 Between: D. Subba Rao. … Petitioner And The Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16393 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner, an Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry officer appointed to look into the matter framed charges against the petitioner on 21.9.2005. After the inquiry, the enquiry officer by report dated 30.11.2005 held that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner were proved. Show cause notice dated 12.12.2005 was issued by the APSPDCL proposing to impose upon the petitioner the punishment of postponement of three increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 04.01.2006. The APSPDCL by order dated 31.01.2006 took a lenient view and reduced the punishment from postponement of three increments with cumulative effect to postponement of one increment with cumulative effect. 2. The APSPDCL informed the petitioner by the said order that an appeal would lie therefrom to the Board within three months as per Regulation 18 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Discipline and Appeal Regulations, which were adopted by the APSPDCL. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal. The APSPDCL by Memo dated 31.5.2006 informed the petitioner that the DISCOM Board, APSPDCL, Tirupati after careful consideration of his appeal found that he had not put forth any fresh points worth consideration and that his appeal was rejected. The petitioner assails the said Memo on the ground that the same is a non-speaking order. 3. The petitioner had a substantive right of appeal owing to the statutory regulation which allowed him such an appellate remedy. Therefore, he was vested with the right to have his appeal heard and decided on merits. Such consideration by the Appellate Authority necessarily had to be reflected in a reasoned order. Reason, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar[1], is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. 4. Viewed in this context, the Memo dated 31.5.2006 leaves a lot to be desired. Except for stating that the DISCOM Board, APSPDCL, Tirupati, observed that the petitioner had not put forth any fresh points worth consideration in the appeal, there is no mention whatsoever of how the grounds urged by him in his appeal had been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, being a Board of legally untrained persons, would not be well versed with legal finesse and therefore cannot be expected to render appellate orders on par with a court. However, the Board ought to have been conscious of the fact that it was discharging quasi-judicial functions and should have strived to at least couch its conclusions and findings with due reasons. Cryptic and un-reasoned orders do injustice to the appellants who come before such authorities. In effect, an unreasoned and non- speaking order renders the very right of the appeal granted by the statute, nugatory and wholly illusory. 5. As the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal under Regulation 18 of the APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations was reduced to a mockery by the impugned Memo dated 31.5.2006, it cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority, the Board of Directors of the APSPDCL, for fresh consideration. The appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with due procedure within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by way of a detailed and reasoned order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: November 22, 2010. BSB [1] (2003) 11 SCC 519