Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1987. While he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Airport Security at Meenambakkam Airport, on 8.9.2000 one captain Kumar, Operational Manager, Jet Airways entered Gate No.8 at Meenambakkam Airport without valid documents. According to the petitioner, he stopped his car and did not permit him to proceed further. But the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 14.10.2000 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Rules) alleging that he permitted a private vehicle belonging to captain Kumar to gain entry into the operational area of Chennai Airport on 08.09.2000 without valid documents. The petitioner gave his explanation on 17.11.2000 denying the charges. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Airport Security imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect by an order dated 07.12.2000 based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Airport Security, Meenampakkam. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 28.12.2000. Further, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range has rejected the appeal by an order dated 02.02.2001. The petitioner submitted a review petition before the Inspector General of Police(law and Order), Chennai dated 24.05.2001. The Inspector General of Police allowed the review petition by an order dated 25.07.2001 and set aside the punishment. While so, the respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 03.12.2001 suo motto under Rule 15(A) (1)(ii) of the Rules to cancel the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 25.07.2001 and to impose the penalty ordered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 4. The petitioner filed an original application in O.A.No.15 of 2002 to quash the show cause notice. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application on 19.02.2002 on the ground that no reason was given by the respondent for issuing the show cause notice dated 03.12.2001. The Department preferred W.P.No.34030 of 2002 before a Division Bench of this Court against the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court granted interim stay on 03.09.2002. On 04.03.2003, the Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioner gave explanation. 5. The Department preferred W.P.No.34030 of 2002 before a Division Bench of this Court against the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court granted interim stay on 03.09.2002. On 04.03.2003, the Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioner gave explanation. 5. Ultimately, the Director General of Police passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2004 by upholding the punishment given by the Disciplinary Authority. The writ petition in W.P.No.34030 of 2002 thus become infructuous and the same was closed as infructuous. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2145 of 2004 to quash the order dated 28.04.2004 of the respondent. 6. No reply affidavit has been filed by the respondent. 7. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the original application was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.17500 of 2007. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 25.07.2001 is a reasoned order, the impugned order of the respondent does not contain any reason. The learned counsel further submits that when the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police was relied on by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Airport Security to impose the punishment and the same was not furnished to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned punishment was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Honble Apex Court in KrantiAssociates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others ((2010) 9 SCC 496). Paragraph 46 of the above said judgment is extracted as follows:- "46. The position in the United States has been indicated by this Court in S.N.Mukherjee in SCC p.602 , para 11:AIR para 11 at p.1988 of he judgment. This Court held that in the United States the Courts have always insisted on the recording of reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held that such recording of reasons is required as "the courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review". In S.N.Mukherjee this Court relied on the decisions of the US Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v.Chenery Corpn. And Dunlop v. Bachowski in support of its opinion discussed above." 10. In S.N.Mukherjee this Court relied on the decisions of the US Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v.Chenery Corpn. And Dunlop v. Bachowski in support of its opinion discussed above." 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has sought to sustain the impugned order based on the oral instruction. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. The petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 14.10.2000 under Rule 3(a) of the Rules alleging that he has permitted a private vehicle belonging to Captain Kumar, Operation Manager, Jet Airways to gain entry into the operational area of Chennai Airport on 08.09.2000 without any valid documents. But the specific case of the petitioner is that though he has permitted the private car of Captain Kumar to enter into the gate, he stopped the car and did not permit him to proceed further and thereafter removed from the operational area. But the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order dated 07.12.2000 imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect on the basis of the report dated 27.11.2000 of the Assistant Commissioner of Area Security, Meenabakkam. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said report was never furnished to the petitioner before relying on the same. The principles of natural justice requires that the report should have been given before the same was relied on by the petitioner and the views of the petitioner should have been obtained thereafter. 13. The appeal filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police was rejected and thereafter the matter was taken up before the Inspector General of Police. The Inspector General of Police allowed the review petition on 25.07.2001. Para 6 of the order of the Inspector General of Police is extracted here under:- “6. I have carefully gone through the review petition with connected PR files and records. In view of the fact that there was no malafide intention or deliberate effort to allow the car of the operations Manager, Jet Airways into the operational area of the airport and in view of the report of Inspector B Section that the petitioner had indeed ordered the stopping of the vehicle and its removal from the operational area, the charge is not proved conclusively. Hence, the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect is set aside.” (emphasis applied) The Inspector General of Police categorically recorded the reason for setting aside the punishment. He found that the Inspector of B section enquired into the matter and immediately gave a report that the petitioner has stopped the vehicle of Caption Kumar and when the said car tried to enter the operational area, he removed the same from the operational area. 14. The aforesaid order of Inspector General of Police was ultimately reversed by the respondent in his order dated 28.04.2004. The respondent has not given any reason as to why he disagrees with the findings recorded by the Inspector General of Police. I have perused the impugned order. It does not contain any reason for restoring the punishment particularly when the Inspector General of police set aside the punishment giving his reasons. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Honble Apex Court as held in KrantiAssociates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others ((2010) 9 SCC 496) that the reason is the backbone of any decision making and any other, whether it be of administrative authority or quasi judicial authority, without any order, is not an order in the eye of law. Paragraph 47 of the Apex Court order is extracted as here under.:- “47.Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions after anyone prejudicially. (b)A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c)Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear tobe done as well. (d)Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e)Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f)Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (l)Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.” 16. (f)Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (l)Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.” 16. For all the above stated reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.