Judgment :- This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28.03.2008 on the file of the first Respondent whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 010. 2007 imposing minor penalty was rejected on the ground that direction issued by the first Respondent for return of the equipment as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal was not complied with by the petitioner. 2. Originally, challenge in the Writ Petition was in respect of the order dated 212. 2007 directing the petitioner to surrender all the equipments which were in his custody for the purpose of taking up his appeal on merits. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the very appeal was dismissed as per order dated 28.03.2008 for non-compliance of the earlier direction and as such, the petitioner has amended the prayer to incorporate an additional prayer to quash the final order dated 28.03.2008. 3. Factual matrix necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as under :- Petitioners version :- .(a) The petitioner is functioning as Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in the Pondicherry Engineering College. The fourth Respondent formulated various research programmes for implementation through out the country and framed two schemes known as scheme of "Thrust Area Programmes in Technical Education (TAPTEC)" and scheme of "Research and Development (R&D)" and in the year 2001-2002, they have also published guidelines for submission of project proposals, funding and carrying out the programmes. As per the scheme, the fourth Respondent would sanction funds not exceeding Rs.20,00,000/- and the project would be under the guidance of a Project Investigator vested with the primary responsibility of implementation of the project. .(b) In accordance with the scheme framed by the fourth Respondent, the petitioner mooted a project known as "Development of Virtual Laboratory for the Power Electrical Circuits and Systems through Computer Stimulations" and the said project was approved by the fourth Respondent as per order dated 04.03.2002 and the fourth Respondent sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-for the project and the petitioner functioned as the Principal Investigator for the entire project. They have also purchased Computer, Computer Printers, digital storage scope with a portable data logger and other related assessories and a virtual laboratory was set up and the research programme was conducted involving Post Graduate Students of the Department for the entire project of three years and developed the educational modules on Power Electronics Circuits and Systems Engineering and ultimately submitted the final report during May, 2005. Even though the project period was over, the project equipments were used as training centre for faculties and students. Besides, the students have to be encouraged to do their mini projects in that area continuously and as such, assessories purchased by the petitioner for the project was kept in his possession. As Principal Investigator, the petitioner was also entitled to all the sums that might be announced as price money for appreciation of the project and he was also entitled to do consultancy by utilizing the said virtual lab as per the sanctioned terms of the fourth Respondent. .(c) While so, the third respondent became the Principal in-charge of the Pondicherry Engineering College and as he was inimically indisposed of against the petitioner, he started giving trouble to the petitioner in his functioning as the Principal Investigator and ultimately, the petitioner was issued with a memo on 10.07.2006 alleging that the instruments were kept under the possession of the petitioner without authority and as such, he was directed to return the equipment to the laboratory. Even though the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice, the same was not considered by the third Respondent. Subsequently, another memo was issued by the third Respondent on 09.08.2006 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the memo also. Even after submission of the explanation, the third Respondent was not satisfied with the same and as such, a charge memo dated 012. 2006 was issued with respect to non return of the equipment and use of the same by the petitioner. .(d) Immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.06.2006 denying the entire charge and thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and even without conducting a full fledged enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 06.07.2007 wherein it was reported that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 09.07.2007. .(d) Immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.06.2006 denying the entire charge and thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and even without conducting a full fledged enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 06.07.2007 wherein it was reported that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 09.07.2007. Even though the petitioner sought time to submit his explanation, the same was not acceded to by the third Respondent and as such, the petitioner was forced to submit his explanation on 25.07.2007. However, without considering the said explanation, the second Respondent was pleased to pass an order imposing minor penalty of withholding an increment for a period of one year and directed the petitioner to surrender the equipment in his possession, failing which, it was indicated that the value of the items would be recovered from his salary. .(e) The order dated 010. 2007 was challenged by the petitioner before the first Respondent as per Bye-law No.9(8) of the Engineering College (Pondicherry Society) Service Bye-law, 1985. After receipt of the said appeal, the second Respondent issued an order dated 212. 2007 to the effect that the appeal preferred by the petitioner would be considered only if he returns all the equipments in his custody in the first instance and submits a compliance report to the Head of Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition. 4. The Writ Petition was filed on 17.03.2008 and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as per order dated 28.03.2008 on the ground of non-compliance of the direction issued to the petitioner on 212. 2007 to return the equipments as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 28.03.2008 on the ground that when the main issue to be decided in the appeal pertains to the contention of the petitioner as to whether he was bound to return the equipments, the Appellate Authority should not have directed him to return the very equipment as a condition for consideration of the appeal. Respondents version : 5. Respondents version : 5. In the counter affidavit by the second Respondent, it was his contention that the project was completed in the year 2005 itself and as such, the petitioner was bound to return the equipments to the institution as the entire equipments belonged to the college. Since the petitioner failed to return the equipment in spite of series of notices issued to him, the college was left with no other alternative than to initiate disciplinary proceedings and after conducting the enquiry in the matter with due opportunity to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and on the basis of the said report, minor punishment was imposed on the petitioner, withholding one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Governing Body and the Governing Body at its meeting held on 30.10.2008 carefully considered the representation of the petitioner dated 30.01.2008 with reference to the earlier appeal dated 30.10.2007 and took note with deep concern on the non return of equipments by the petitioner in spite of the direction given by the governing body as per order dated 212. 2007 and accordingly, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed and the appeal was rejected. Contention of the petitioner :- 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the Assistant Professor of Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the second Respondent institution was well within his authority to keep the equipments with him even though the project was over and the said step was taken only in the interest of the students to use the same for consultancy work by utilizing the virtual lab as per the sanctioned scheme of the fourth Respondent. The learned Counsel further contended that the very issue to be decided by the Appellate Authority pertains to the non-return of the equipments by the petitioner and as such, the second Respondent grievously erred in directing the petitioner to return the equipments during the pendency of the appeal as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal on merits. The learned Counsel further contended that the very issue to be decided by the Appellate Authority pertains to the non-return of the equipments by the petitioner and as such, the second Respondent grievously erred in directing the petitioner to return the equipments during the pendency of the appeal as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal on merits. Even though the petitioner has submitted his representation on 30.01.2008 to the Appellate Authority with respect to the direction given for return of the equipment during the pendency of the appeal, the same was not considered and the Appellate Authority rejected the very appeal as per order dated 28.03.2008 and in such circumstances, the learned Counsel prayed for setting aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition and to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits. Contention of the respondents:- 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the College and the Governing Body contended that when the project itself was completed as early as in May, 2005, there was no authority for the petitioner to keep the equipments in his possession and he was bound to return the same to the institution. It was only on account of the failure of the petitioner to substantiate his version that the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved and a report to that effect was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The said report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. After the receipt of appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to return the equipments so as to enable the said Authority to consider the appeal on merits. However, the petitioner was not prepared to comply with the interim direction given by the Appellate Authority and as such, the Appellate Authority was not having any other alternative than to reject the appeal and accordingly, the appeal was rejected. .8. I have considered the submission of counsel on either side and I have also gone through the materials available on record. Point for consideration : .9. .8. I have considered the submission of counsel on either side and I have also gone through the materials available on record. Point for consideration : .9. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the governing body of the Pondicherry Engineering College was right in rejecting the appeal as per the impugned Order dated 28.03.2008 on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the direction given to him to return the equipments for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits. .Analysis:- 10. The enquiry against the petitioner was ordered by the second Respondent Institution and the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted to the Principal of the Engineering College being the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report and issued notice to the petitioner and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the governing body being the Appellate Authority. 11. When the matter was before the Appellate Authority, the entire issue was at large before the said authority. However, very strangely, the Principal of the Pondicherry Engineering College who imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year on the petitioner and against whose orders, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the governing body, himself issued the order dated 212. 2007 directing the petitioner to return the equipments under his custody in the first instance and submit a compliance report through the Head of Department as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal on merits. The Principal being the Disciplinary Authority should not have issued the order dated 212. 2007 to the petitioner exercising the powers of Appellate Authority. Therefore, the very order dated 212. 2007 issued by the second Respondent is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority cannot function as the Appellate Authority in the very same matter. 12. The Writ Petition was filed on 17.03.2008 and the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 18.03.2008 and it was adjourned by one week and when the matter came up for further hearing on 25.03.2008, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the learned Government Pleader Pondicherry as the counsel for the respondents and posted the matter on 26.03.2008. Accordingly, the matter came up on 26.03.2008 and the matter was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. Very strangely, after the adjournment of the matter, the impugned Order dated 28.03.2008 has been passed by the governing body and the Order was communicated again by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner. .13. In the order dated 28.03.2008, it was stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 30.01.2008 was considered along with his appeal dated 30.10.2007 and the governing body took note with deep concern on the non-return of the equipments by the petitioner in spite of the direction of the governing body and confirmed the penalty and thereby disposed of the appeal. The order is not clear as to whether the appeal was disposed of on merits or as to whether it was disposed of on the sole ground of noncompliance of the direction given for return of the equipment as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal. However, in the counter affidavit, the Disciplinary Authority attempted to justify the action taken by the governing body to reject the appeal. Even though the order dated 28.03.2008 does not say in so many words that the appeal was rejected on merits, but, however, in the counter affidavit filed by the Principal, he sought to justify the order as if the same was made on merits. 14. It is true that the Principal is the Disciplinary Authority as well as Member Secretary of the governing body. When the punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and an appeal against his decision has been filed before the Appellate Authority, principles of natural justice requires him to abstain from hearing the appellate proceedings, as the same was in respect of the order passed by him. However, very strangely, the second Respondent has acted as the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority which was not expected of from the Head of an Educational Institution. 15. The charge against the petitioner was in respect of his non-return of the equipments to the college and the explanation submitted by the petitioner to justify his action was not acceptable to the institution and as such, enquiry was conducted and ultimately, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. 15. The charge against the petitioner was in respect of his non-return of the equipments to the college and the explanation submitted by the petitioner to justify his action was not acceptable to the institution and as such, enquiry was conducted and ultimately, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, the main reason which weighed with the Disciplinary Authority to take action against the petitioner was only on account of the non-return of the equipment by the petitioner to the college. When that was the reason for initiating departmental proceedings and the ultimate punishment imposed on the petitioner, the non compliance of the interim direction cannot be a reason for the rejection of appeal purely on technicality. The order impugned before the governing council involves civil consequences to the petitioner and as such, the Appellate Authority should have considered the matter on merits. 16. The impugned Order dated 28.03.2008 proceeds as if the matter was carefully considered by the Appellate Authority. But, however, the penalty was confirmed. There was no attempt made by the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner and the order is silent as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as enquiry report was considered by the Appellate Authority in coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 17.The order dated 212. 2007 originally impugned in the Writ Petition as well as the subsequent order dated 28.03.2008 clearly shows that the Disciplinary Authority himself took part in the proceedings before the Appellate Authority. The Disciplinary Authority should have abstained from dealing the matter "as no man can be a Judge in his own cause". It is trite that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. 18. The impugned Order is to be quashed for more than one reason. The governing body was dealing with an appeal as per the regulations of the society. The order impugned before the Appellate Authority was an order imposing punishment on the employee and as such, the Appellate Authority should have considered the merits of the matter and the order should have contained reasons which weighed with the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal. The order impugned before the Appellate Authority was an order imposing punishment on the employee and as such, the Appellate Authority should have considered the merits of the matter and the order should have contained reasons which weighed with the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal. All the authorities, whether it be administrative or quasi judicial are expected to indicate reasons in the order, and in case reasons are supplemented in the order, it would enable the authorities in the higher ups to consider the actual reasons which weighed with the lower authority to take a decision in one way or the other. 19. The Apex Court in Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjivan Parshad [ 2008(6) Scale 103 ], indicated the necessity to supplement reasons in the orders of authorities both quasi judicial as well as administrative and observed thus :- "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Courts Judgment not sustainable. 6. We find that the Writ Petition involved disputed issues regarding eligibility. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case of non-application of mind. This Court in several cases has indicated the necessity for recording reasons. 7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148] observed:(All ER P.1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.Crabtree (1974 1 CR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." 8. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affect party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. (See: Chairman and Managing Director, United Commerical Bank v. P.C.Kakkar ( 2003(4) SCC 364 ). 20. The petitioner also appears to have taken the issue very personally and was bent upon to retain the equipments. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the second Respondent college and the equipments are stated to be in the possession of the petitioner. Since the request of the college was only to return those equipments for the benefit of the very institution, the petitioner should not have taken the matter as a prestige issue. Teacher occupies a very pivotal position in the society. The teacher is guide and philosopher for the students and the teacher should not do anything which would be an act of unbecoming of a teacher. 21. In Manager, Nirmala Senior Secondary School, Port Blair v. N.I.Khan & Ors. (JT 2003 (9) SC 472), the Apex Court indicated the quality expected of from teachers and observed thus : "1.A teacher affects eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops; said Henry Adam. Any educational institution for its growth and acceptability to a large measure depends upon the quality of teachers. 2. Educational institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of human intelligence are mastered and harmonized by education. Where there is complete harmony between the teacher and the taught, where the teacher imparts and the student receives, where there is complete dedication of the teacher and the taught in learning, where there is discipline between the teacher and the taught, where both are worshippers of learning, no discord or challenge will arise. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. It is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is an important part in educational institutions. The qualifications and the character of the teachers are really important. 22. In any case, the impugned Order is liable to be quashed as the same does not contain any reason much less justifiable reasons. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :- .(a) The order dated 212. 2007 on the file of the second respondent and the order dated 28.03.2008 on the file of the first respondent are set aside; .(b) The petitioner is directed to return the equipments in his custody to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance of the same to the Chairman of the Governing Council, being the Appellate Authority; (c) On such compliance, the first respondent is directed to take up the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 30.10.2007 and decide the same on merits and as per law, but without the association of the third respondent/Disciplinary Authority, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of report of compliance from the petitioner about the return of the equipments; .(d) M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed; .(e) There is no order as to costs.