Reasoned administrative orders are mandatory where civil consequences follow; unexplained treatment of disputed leave periods was set aside.

An administrative order with civil consequences must disclose reasons and show application of mind; otherwise it is arbitrary and unsustainable. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to explain why some disputed periods were treated as on duty while others were denied the same treatment, despite earlier directions to reconsider the claim. As the order was non-speaking and unexplained, it was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the disputed periods after giving the employee an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order treating certain disputed periods as leave without pay or extraordinary leave could be sustained when it did not record reasons or disclose application of mind, and whether the matter required reconsideration.

Analysis: The disputed order was passed after the earlier round of litigation had directed reconsideration of the petitioner's claim. The order, however, did not explain why some intervening periods were treated as on duty while others were denied the same treatment. The absence of reasons or justification showed no proper application of mind to the petitioner's grievance. An administrative order affecting civil consequences must disclose the basis of the decision, and failure to record reasons renders it arbitrary and legally unsustainable. In such circumstances, the appropriate course is to set aside the order and require fresh decision-making after hearing the affected party.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the disputed periods after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the authority was directed to decide the petitioner's claim afresh by passing a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: An order having civil consequences must record reasons and disclose application of mind; a non-speaking and unexplained order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside with remand for fresh decision.

---