JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner claims that on account of certain illness, he had to proceed on leave submitting a leave application as the urgency prevented him from awaiting approval. His application for leave being sanctioned post facto was duly forwarded on 6.11.2006. 3. The impugned order dated 23.8.2007 has followed imposing stoppage of two incements with non-cumulative effect and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance from the date of suspension. 4. His appeal against the order has been rejected on 19.5.2009. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that either the explanation given by the petitioner was acceptable or it was not acceptable. The impugned order does not give any reasons and is completely non-speaking. 6. In absence of any reasons discussed in the impugned order dated 23.8.2007, this Court has no option but to hold that the order is arbitrary. Reasons facilitate judicial review and act as a regulatory control on the exercise of administrative powers. The explanation given by the petitioner was either acceptable or not acceptable. The failure of the authority to give reasons for not accepting the explanation satisfies this Court that if the administrative authority finds it inconvenient not to accept the explanation and therefore, chooses to pass non-speaking order, this Court has no option but to interfere in the matter. 7. The manner in which his appeal has been disposed without any discussion much less consideration on merits disappoints this Court. 8. The order dated 23.8.2007 is quashed. The application is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits.