JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on July 16, 1985 and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. After completion of inquiry the petitioner was penalised vide order dated Feb. 1, 1988 whereby two annual grade increments were ordered to be withheld without cumulative effect. Thereafter Departmental Promotion Committee met for making promotions to the post of Accountant and promotions were made vide order dated Sept. 28, 1988. The petitioner now seeks to quash the aforequoted order dated Feb. 1, 1988 and Sept. 29, 1988. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that punishment order dated Feb. 1, 1988 is absolutely non-speaking order and the same has been passed with non-application of mind. Reply to show cause notice was not at all considered. Similarly the order dated Sept. 29, 1988 is also bad in law as year wise vacancies were not determined and the persons shown from item No. 39 and onwards in the order have been promoted, who were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner would not have been deprived from consideration, had the vacancies been determined year wise. In that event the punishment order would not have been come in the way of the petitioner. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scrutinised the record. 4. A look at the order dated Feb. 1, 1988 (Annexure-7) demonstrates that the Chief Account Officer (Disciplinary Authority) neither discussed the charges nor referred the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, it was only stated in the order that the disciplinary authority after study completely agreed with the report of inquiry officer. No reason has been assigned by the disciplinary authority as to why he approved the report of inquiry officer. 5. I am of the considered view that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to give reasons before imposing punishment on the petitioner. Necessity of giving reasons is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the duty to act judicially. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and excludes arbitrariness in the decision making process. Recording of reasons in support of an order of punishment ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and excludes arbitrariness in the decision making process. Recording of reasons in support of an order of punishment ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. Administrative bodies, like RSRTC (respondent No. 1) having quasi judicial power must comply with the principles of natural justice and give reasons for their conclusions. 6. It follows from the above discussion that there does not appear to be any application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the record and enquiry report. The order dated Feb. 1, 1988 (Annexure 7) of the respondent No. 1 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments deserves to be quashed for the reason that it is a non-speaking order. 7. It is therefore not necessary for me to deal with the other argument raised in respect of year wise determination of vacancies as the petitioner was denied promotion only on the ground of punishment imposed upon him. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated Feb. 1, 1988 (Annexure 7) stands set-aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the petitioner for promotion with all consequential benefits to the post of Accountant from the date the persons similarly situated had been promoted. No costs.Writ petition allowed. *******