JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent vide (Permanent) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.29, culminating in his order dated 19.2.2011, as confirmed by the order of the first respondent vide (Permanent) (FB) TANGEDCO Proceedings No.40, dated 28.9.2011, to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service as Executive Engineer with effect from 30.4.2006 with all terminal and pensionary benefits. 2. The petitioner, while serving as an Executive Engineer, was served with a charge memo on 12.5.2008. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows: "Charge – I: That Thiru K.S. Mani, then Executive Engineer/Operation/230 KVSS/Shenbagaramanpudur (now under suspension) has acquired movable and immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members during the period between 23.12.1998 and 29.7.2004 to the tune of Rs.10,74,863/- which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. Charge – II: That Thiru K.S. Mani, then Executive Engineer/Operation/230 KVSS/Shenbagaramanpudur has failed to obtain the previous sanction of the prescribed authority to permit his son Thiru S.M. Kannan to accept gift in the form of house sites and houses and thereby violated the provisions laid down under regulation 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Conduct Regulations. Charge – III: That Thiru K.S. Mani, then Executive Engineer/Operation/230 KVSS/Shenbagaramanpudur has failed to bring to the notice of the prescribed authority in acquiring the movable and immovable properties during the year 2002, thereby violated the provisions laid down under regulation 13(1) and 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Conduct Regulations." 3. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and he came to the conclusion that all the charges were proved. The petitioner was given an opportunity to rebut the findings of the Inquiry Officer and finally a show cause notice was issued on 13.12.2010 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of removal from service should not be imposed, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. After considering the same, the second respondent/Original Authority, on 19.2.2011, passed the following order: "7. After considering the same, the second respondent/Original Authority, on 19.2.2011, passed the following order: "7. After a careful and holistic consideration of the case and the representation along with the connected records, the findings of the Inquiry Officer are accepted and therefore for the proven charges, it is hereby ordered that Thiru K.S.Mani, Executive Engineer/Electrical be removed from the services of the corporation with immediate effect. 8. Thiru K.S. Mani, Executive Engineer/Electrical was placed under suspension with effect from 28.4.2006 A.N. and he was not permitted to retire on 30.4.2006 A.N. on attaining the age of superannuation. Consequently he was retained in the service till the finalization of the Disciplinary Proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. The service rights of Thiru K.S. Mani, Executive Engineer/Electrical now under suspension shall freeze on the date of superannuation as per rules." 4. As against the said order passed by the second respondent/Original Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent/Board. The first respondent/Board, while rejecting the appeal, has held as under: "4. In his letter ninth read above, Thiru K.S. Mani, Executive Engineer/Electrical (removed from service) has preferred an appeal against the punishment. In his appeal he has stated that the allegation of disproportionate assets was initiated based on a anonymous petition and the report of the same reflected the details of his family and its backgrounds, namely the gifts received by his wife and son were the properties purchased by him, disproportionate to the known source of income. Even though the Inquiry Officer had initially discussed all the points in favour of the delinquent official, finally, he concluded that the charges framed against him were proved. He also added that the charge of misuse of official power against him is baseless as he had never indulged in such misuse of the said power. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal. The points put forth had already been submitted by him in his explanation, the further representation and reply to the show cause notice. He had not adduced any fresh points for consideration. 5. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal. The points put forth had already been submitted by him in his explanation, the further representation and reply to the show cause notice. He had not adduced any fresh points for consideration. 5. The Board, after careful and holistic consideration of the appeal of Thiru K.S.Mani, Executive Engineer/Electrical (removed from service) resolved that the appeal against the orders issued in (Per) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.29(SB), dated 19.2.2011, 'be rejected'." On going through the original order passed by the second respondent and the appellate order passed by the first respondent, referred to above, it is evident that what has been stated by the second respondent has only been repeated by the first respondent. 5. A specific plea is taken in ground (xii) that the first respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under Regulation 15 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee's Discipline and Appeal Regulations, which is as under: "15. Consideration of appeals: (1) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in Regulation 5, the appellate authority shall consider: (a) whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; (b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; (c) whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate and pass orders; i. confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty: or ii. remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; provided that:- (i) If the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in items (iii), (iv)(c), (v), (vi) and (vii) of Regulation 5 and an enquiry under sub-Regulation (b) of Regulation 8 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall subject to the provisions of the sub-Registration (c) of regulation 8, itself hold such enquiry or direct that enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of sub-Regulation (b) of Regulation 8 and thereafter, on a consideration of the proceedings of such enquiry and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry make such orders as it may deem fit; (ii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties in items (iii), (iv)(c), (v), (vi) and (vii) of Regulation 5 and an enquiry under sub-Regulation (b) of Regulation 8 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during enquiry, make such orders as it may deem fit; and (iii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-regulation (b) of Regulation 8 of making representation against such enhanced penalty. (2) Any error or defect in the procedure followed in imposing a penalty may be disregarded by the appellate authority if such authority considers, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the error or defect was not material and has neither caused injustice to the person concerned nor affected the decision of the case." 6. Apparently, on going through the order of the first respondent/ Board, it is clear that none of the above factors have been taken into consideration, except reiterating the findings of the second respondent. Apparently, on going through the order of the first respondent/ Board, it is clear that none of the above factors have been taken into consideration, except reiterating the findings of the second respondent. There appears to be absolutely no application of mind by the first respondent while considering the merits of the appeal filed challenging the punishment imposed, more particularly the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Mere reiteration of the findings of the Inquiry Officer will not suffice. 7. It is well established principle in law that the administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , the 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 decision-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. 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. 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. 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." 8. In the case on hand, the first respondent/Board has merely reiterated the finding of the second respondent. He has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal in the light of the procedure contemplated under Regulation 15 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee's Discipline and Appeal Regulations. The appellate order is bereft of reasons. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the first respondent and remit the matter to the first respondent/Board for reconsideration of the appeal and for passing speaking order on merits. The first respondent shall pass such orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed by way of remand, as indicated above. No costs.