Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition No.11927 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D)No.90, Environment and Forests (FR.9B) Department, dated 17.4.2008, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for 2007-2008 for promotion as Forest Ranger in the appropriate place therein and to promote him with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. 2. Writ Petition No.11928 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D)No.89, Environment and Forests (FR.9B) Department, dated 17.4.2008, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for 2007-2008 for promotion as Forester in the appropriate place therein and to promote him with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. 3. Writ Petition No.11929 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D)No.91, Environment and Forests (FR.9B) Department, dated 17.4.2008, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for 2007-2008 for promotion as Forester in the appropriate place therein and to promote him with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. 4. Writ Petition No.21371 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D)No.88, Environment and Forests (FR.9B) Department, dated 17.4.2008, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner in the post of Ranger and to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. 5. 5. Writ Petition No.30026 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Pro.No.AB1/55820/2007 dated 29.4.2008 issued by the second respondent, quash the same to the limited extent of non-selection of the petitioner in the said panel and to issue consequential direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion for the year 2007-2008 in the appropriate place therein and promote him as Forester with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with consequential benefits. 6. The relief sought for in the first four writ petitions is identical. Insofar as the fifth Writ Petition No.30026 of 2008 is concerned it is in respect of a relief, subject to the result of the Writ Petition No.11928 of 2008 filed challenging the punishment. Hence, all the five writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 7. The petitioners, viz., Mr.V.Vaiyapuri, Forester; Mr.C.Karuppannan, Forest Guard; Mr.Srirangan, Forest Guard; G.Madhaiyan, Forest Ranger are alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe from Forest Offenders. The occurrence in all these cases took place on 24.11.1994 and all the four persons were charged with under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (discipline and Appeal) Rules. An enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was completed on 28.2.2000. The enquiry officer gave his reports stating that the charges were not proved in his proceedings dated 20.3.2000. The Disciplinary Authority, disagreed with the enquiry officer's report and gave all the petitioners an opportunity to give their explanations. To the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority differing with the findings of the enquiry officer dated 2.4.2001, all the petitioners have given their explanations in August 2001. Thereafter, after a period of nearly seven years, separate final orders have been passed in respect of each individuals by the Government, rejecting the enquiry officer's report and holding that all the four persons are guilty of the charges alleged. Thereafter, after a period of nearly seven years, separate final orders have been passed in respect of each individuals by the Government, rejecting the enquiry officer's report and holding that all the four persons are guilty of the charges alleged. The punishment as follows was imposed:- (i) The punishment imposed in respect of the petitioner Mr.Vaiyapuri, as per G.O.(D) No.90 Environment and Forests (FR.9B) dated 17.4.2008 is as follows:-"TAMIL" (ii) The punishment imposed in respect of the petitioner Mr.C.Karuppannan, as per G.O.(D) No.89 Environment and Forests (FR.9B) dated 17.4.2008 is as follows:-"TAMIL" (iii) The punishment imposed in respect of the petitioner Mr.R.Srirangan, as per G.O.(D) No.91 Environment and Forests (FR.9B) dated 17.4.2008 is as follows:-"TAMIL" (iv) The punishment imposed in respect of the petitioner Mr.Madhaiyan, as per G.O.(D) No.88 Environment and Forests (FR.9B) dated 17.4.2008 is as follows:-"TAMIL" Challenging the above four Government Orders, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11927 to 11929 and 21371 of 2008 have filed the writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.No.30026 of 2008, who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.11928 of 2008 has filed the writ petition challenging the consequential order passed in proceedings Pro.No.AB1/55820/2007 dated 29.4.2008 issued by the second respondent whereby he was denied service benefits. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions raised the following contentions:- (i) The Show cause notice dated 2.4.2001 issued by the Disciplinary Authority differing with the enquiry officer's findings shows the mind set of the authority holding the petitioners guilty of the charges even before the explanation is submitted. The direction to give an explanation is an empty formality, in other words, the Disciplinary Authority has already prejudged the issue and therefore, the respondents have acted with bias. (ii) To the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority in letter dated 2.4.2001, petitioners submitted their explanations in August, 2001. Thereafter, there is an unexplained and enormous delay of 7 years in concluding the proceedings. This delay vitiates the proceedings. (iii) There is no discussion on merits of the allegation or the explanation given. In the impugned Government Orders except narration of the charge memo, the explanation, the enquiry officer's report and the disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no discussion on merits of the charge, the evidence of witnesses to conclude the allegation of delinquency. (iii) There is no discussion on merits of the allegation or the explanation given. In the impugned Government Orders except narration of the charge memo, the explanation, the enquiry officer's report and the disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no discussion on merits of the charge, the evidence of witnesses to conclude the allegation of delinquency. The impugned Government Orders, holding the petitioners as guilty of the charges, resulting in imposition of the punishment as above is without application of mind, bereft of reasons and therefore, it is the pre-functionary and arbitrary order. On this premise the impugned proceedings are challenged. 9. Heard Mr.S.N.Kirubanandham, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the respondents, who vehemently contended that the delay is because of the voluminous of records that was considered in all the cases. The views of the Public Service Commission was necessary to proceed in the matter as explained in the counter-affidavit and the delay due to administrative cause should not be the reason to let off persons charged with serious delinquencies. Therefore, only on the ground of delay the impugned proceedings need not be set aside. 10. The plea with regard to the merits of the disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority on the enquiry officer's report is an issue which should have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the final order. Unfortunately, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned Government Orders in each one of the cases suffer from arbitrariness and total non-application of mind. There is no discussion as to the merits of the charges framed against the individual petitioners and their explanations. The impugned orders also do not give any reason to support the view as to why the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the enquiry officer's report. This vitiates the impugned proceedings as there is absolute lack of reasons to support the finding of guilt. 11. It is well established principle in law that Administrative Authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record reasons for its decision. In S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 35, 38 and 39 as follows:- "35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. In S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 35, 38 and 39 as follows:- "35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge." "38. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case." "39. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision." The above decision will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision." The above decision will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 12. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the impugned Government Orders challenged in the first four writ petitions deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition for consequential benefits does not require adjudication as the petitioner agrees to proceed for other reliefs after the government finally decides the delinquency issue on merits. Hence, the W.P.No.30026 of 2008 is closed reserving the petitioner's right as above. 13. Taking note of the fact that the occurrence in all the cases took place in the year 1994, the charge memo was issued in the year 1998, the enquiry was completed on 28.2.2000, the enquiry report was filed in March, 2000 and the explanation to the Disciplinary Authorities show cause notice was given in August, 2001, the Government needs to decide the issue objectively and pragmatically within a time frame so as to avoid the plea of prejudice and hardship that has been rightly pointed out by the petitioners' counsel. It is also to be noted that in the case of Mr.Srirangan and Mr.Karuppannan, the Tribunal has given a direction to respondent department to conclude the proceeding at the earliest and that order was passed in the year 2003. Keeping this in mind, the Government is directed to rehear the matters after affording the petitioners or their authorised representatives an opportunity of hearing and conclude the proceedings on or before 28.1.2011. The time limit fixed by this Court is based on the plea made by the petitioners' counsel that one of the petitioners is likely to be retire on 31st January, 2011. 14. All the writ petitions are ordered as above. No costs.