JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. With regard to certain recommendations made by the petitioner as an Anchal Adhikari in Bandobasti Case a show cause notice was given to him which he duly replied. The impugned punishment dated 27.5.2009 followed thereafter stopping three increments with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred a review application against the same which has also been rejected on 28.10.2009. 3. For imposition of minor punishment all that is required is to give a show cause notice, consider the cause shown and then pass a speaking order displaying application of mind to the charges made and the cause shown to arrive at a finding. There must be a brief discussion in the final order displaying transparency with regard to application of mind to the materials on record and on the basis of which findings are made of either to accept the cause shown or reject the cause shown. This has been considered necessary by the courts as a facet of the principles of natural justice. This process of reasoning has been held to be the ultimate control upon arbitrariness in order to impose minor punishment. If an order contains no discussion or reason the matter is left to the uncontrolled authority to pass an order on his own. A citizen is left without satisfaction that the cause shown by him has been appropriately considered but was found not unacceptable. 4. The defence of the State that it would explain the matter from the counter affidavit does not appeal to this Court at all. That is the manner in which the State continues to generate litigation. Orders are passed which are non-speaking in nature at whims upon which judicial review is not possible. When a citizen comes to the court the usual refrain of the State is that it shall file a counter affidavit. The matter gets adjourned and remains pending for years thereafter on an issue as trivial as the present of a minor punishment, imposing unnecessary burden on the courts. The law that an order will have to be tested on the recitals contained in the order and cannot be explained in the counter affidavit, has been settled as far back as in 1978 SC 852 (Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi) and has been reiterated times without number till date. 5. The law that an order will have to be tested on the recitals contained in the order and cannot be explained in the counter affidavit, has been settled as far back as in 1978 SC 852 (Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi) and has been reiterated times without number till date. 5. The counter affidavit filed in this case suffers from the same flaw as the impugned order. 6. The impunged order dated 27.5.2009 simply states that after consideration of the charges, the cause shown and the materials on record it was prima facie found that he was guilty. The review was likewise dismissed in a single line by stating that there is no material for reconsideration. The review order suffers from the same vice as the original order. 7. The impugned orders dated 27.5.2009 and 28.10.2009 are accordingly set aside. 8. The writ application stands allowed but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents.