JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this case was appointed as a Tehsildar in the service of the State of Rajasthan. While he was posted as a Tehsildar at Hindaun he was served with a charge sheet along with a statement of allegations by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, and proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') were taken against the petitioner. 2. One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated August 9, 1971 in consequence of the aforesaid proceedings under R. 17 of the Rules is not a speaking order and no reasons have been assigned by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue for coming to the conclusion that the guilt of the petitioner was established. At any rate the reasons, if any, were not communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that even an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the State Government was disposed of by a cryptic order stating that there was no substance in the appeal and not reasons were assigned even in the appellate order for the dismissal of the same. 3. As I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of on the ground that reasons for holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him were not communicated to him either by the Disciplinary Authority or even by the Appellate Authority, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor it is necessary for me to enter into the details of the allegations made against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. What has been vehemently argued before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Board of Revenue dated August 9, 1971 (Exhibit 4) states that after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner in respect of the show cause notice and the comments of the Collector, Sikar in respect thereof and after considering the related record, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner and as such four annual grade increments of the petitioner were directed to be withheld with future effect. The case set up by the petitioner was that no reasons were recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and further that no such reasons were communicated to the petitioner. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have submitted an extract copy of the note-sheet of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in which the reasons were recorded by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue holding that the petitioner and another officer, Kishen Singh Shekhawat were guilty of the charges framed against them and proposed that the punishment of stoppage of four grade increments with cumulative effect be imposed upon the petitioner. The Chairman of the Board of Revenue appears to have approved of the reasons recorded by the Registrar of the Board and also the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that the reasons which were recorded by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue on the note sheet of the disciplinary proceedings were not communicated to the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Advocate, however, contended that the petitioner had inspected the record of the disciplinary proceedings & as such it must be held that the petitioner had known the reasons which persuaded the disciplinary authority to hold the petitioner guilty in respect of the charges levelled against him. The learned Government Advocate placed reliance upon the application of the petitioner Annexure R. 2 in support of the aforesaid contention. The learned Government Advocate placed reliance upon the application of the petitioner Annexure R. 2 in support of the aforesaid contention. However, on a perusal of the document Annexure R 2 at appears that the petitioner desired to inspect the record of the disciplinary proceedings only relating to the comments of the Collector, Sikar and the Registrar of the Board of Revenue had also allowed the petitioner to see the comments of the Collector, Sikar, which were referred to in the order dated August 9, 1971 inflicting punishment upon the petitioner. The document Annexure R 2 does not at all disclose that the reasons recorded on the note-sheet for holding the petitioner guilty were either shown to the petitioner or even that he desired to inspect the same. As the order communicated to the petitioner dated August 9, 1971 did not disclose that reasons, for coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner were held to be established, were recorded elsewhere on the file, the petitioner could not normally visualise that the reason for holding him guilty might have been recorded separately on the note-sheet. However, in para No. 3 of the writ petition the petitioner has reproduced a copy of his application dated August 5, 1972 which he submitted to the Registrar of the Board of Revenue and in which he complained about the fact that the order of punishment did not contain the reasons on the basis of which the finding of guilt was recorded against him and that in case the reasons were separately recorded, a copy their of should be furnished to him. The grievance of the petitioners that no copy of the alleged reasons was supplied to him and as such he could not think that the reasons were recorded separate] by the Disciplinary Authority for holding hat the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is apparent from the aforesaid application made by the petitioner on August 5, 1972 that the petitioner was not aware ever upto that day of the existence of the reasons having been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the note-sheet, on the basis of which he was held guilty. It is apparent from the aforesaid application made by the petitioner on August 5, 1972 that the petitioner was not aware ever upto that day of the existence of the reasons having been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the note-sheet, on the basis of which he was held guilty. It would, therefore, be fair to conclude that the reasons which are said to have been recorded on the note-sheet by the Registrar of the Board and a copy of which has been placed on the record as Annexure R.1 by the respondents were neither disclosed nor communicated to the petitioner, although now it appears that the reasons were recorded on the note sheet of the record of the disciplinary proceedings. 5. Now the question is as to whether the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated on account of the fact that reasons were not communicated to the petitioner though recorded on the note sheet of the record of the disciplinary proceedings. The question was considered by this Court in Ram Khilari v. Union of India, 1976 RLW 320 and after an exhaustive discussion of the matter and relying upon the relying observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ajanta Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, 1976 UJ (SC) 157 and other cases, it was held that non-communication of the reasons recorded by an administrative authority acting in a quasi judicial manner amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice - "Communication of the order is an absolutely essential requirement since the assessee is then immediately made aware of the reasons which impelled the authorities to pass the order ........ it is submitted, on behalf of the Revenue, that the very fact that reasons are recorded in the file, although these are not communicated to the assessee, fully meets the requirement of section 127 (1). We are unable to accept this submission ........ it is submitted, on behalf of the Revenue, that the very fact that reasons are recorded in the file, although these are not communicated to the assessee, fully meets the requirement of section 127 (1). We are unable to accept this submission ........ The reasons for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution and even to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations . . . . When Law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting pre-judicially the interests of any person, who can challenge the order in Court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the vice of violation of the principle of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reasons is not expiated " 6. He cannot be denied the administrative authority while deciding the disciplinary proceedings undertaken against a Government servant has to action in a quasi-judicial manner & that not only the reasons which led the said authority to reach at its conclusion should be recorded but the same should also be disclosed to the affected party. The communication of reason is necessary so that the party aggrieved may effectively challenge the order in question in appeal or revision before the administrative authorities or in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. Unless the reasons for the decision of the Disciplinary Authority are communicated to the delinquent officer he cannot maintain an elective appeal nor can he challenge the order imposing penalty upon him by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings. In my view, the decision in Ramkhilari's case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case as well and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the present case suffers from the infirmity that it did not disclose the reasons which impelled the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established, as a result of the disciplinary enquiry conducted by him. 7. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated August 9, 1971 (Exhibit 4) imposing penalty upon the petitioner as well as the order passed by the State Government on appeal dated May 29, 1972 are quashed. It would, however, be open to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, if it so considers proper, to pass such order as it may think fit on the proceedings taken against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and to communicate such order and the reasons therefore to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ allowed. *******