JUDGMENT By the Court.—Inspite of the fact that list has been revised, none appeared for the opposite parties. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 17.12.1999 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2155/1999 by which the Tribunal has passed an interim order restraining the petitioner-State to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against the claimant-opposite party No. 1. No interim order was passed by this Court at the time of admitting the present writ petition. 3. While assailing the impugned order, Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that by the orders dated 1.11.1999 and 8.11.1999, the State Government has initiated the disciplinary proceedings and approved the charge-sheet of the claimant-opposite party No. 1. The claimant-opposite party No. 1 approached the Tribunal for quashing of the aforesaid orders passed the State Government with regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings as well as service of Charge-sheet. 4. A perusal of the claim petition filed by the claimant-opposite party No. 1 before the Tribunal, reveals that the claimant-opposite party No. 1 has prayed for the following reliefs in his claim petition : “(8) RELIEF SOUGHT On the basis of facts and grounds mentioned in the present claim petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs : (a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the Annexures 1 and 2 to the compilation No. 1 of claim petition and declare that no enquiry is permissible against the petitioner and he is entitled to all the consequential service benefits arising out of the same. (b) That the cost of the claim petition alongwith any other order, which this Tribunal may deem, fit, just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (9) INTERIM RELIEF IF ANY PRAYED FOR. For the facts, reasons, and circumstances stated in the present claim petition, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to stay the operation of the Annexure 1 dated 1.11.1999 and 8.11.1999 or stay the further proceedings on the basis of order dated 1.11.1999 and 8.11.1999 or pass any suitable order, which is just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.” 5. The perusal of the aforesaid reliefs on the face of record, reveals that a prayer was made for quashing of the pending disciplinary proceedings against the claimant-opposite party No. 1. While passing the impugned order dated 17.12.1999, the Tribunal has restrained the State Government to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has granted the interim relief having the nature of the final relief which is not legally sustainable. He has relied upon a case in State of U.P. and others v. Ram Sukhi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 733 , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering various earlier Judgments, held as under : 8. To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd., ( 1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties, ( 1985 (3) SCC 217 at p.224), State of U.P. and others v. Visheshwar, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 590), Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and others, (1995 Supp (2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and others v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and another, (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and Commissioner/Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Musa and others, (1995 Supp (2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and others v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and another, (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and Commissioner/Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli, (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.” 7. In view of law laid down in the case of Ram Sukhi Devi (Supra), while deciding the pending claim petition, it was not open for the Tribunal to grant any relief which may amount to a final relief. 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon one another case in Raja Khan v. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and another, (2011) 2 SCC 741 . In the case of Raja Khan (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while granting any interim relief, the Court should not rely upon the material which may be extraneous for the controversy involved therein. It has further been held by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court that final relief should not be granted at an interim stage. For convenience, the relevant paragraphs from the case of Raja Khan (Supra) are reproduced as under : 11. It is well-settled that by an interim order the final relief should not be granted, vide U.P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani (SCC para 8), State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi (SCC para 6), etc. 16. We are sorry to say but a lot of complaints are coming against certain Judges of the Allahabad High Court relating to their integrity. B. Sheetal Nandwani (SCC para 8), State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi (SCC para 6), etc. 16. We are sorry to say but a lot of complaints are coming against certain Judges of the Allahabad High Court relating to their integrity. Some Judges have their kith and kin practising in the same Court, and within a few years of starting practice the sons or relations of the Judge become multi-millionaires, have huge bank balances, luxurious cars, huge houses and are enjoying a luxurious life. This is a far cry from the days when the sons and other relatives of Judges could derive no benefit from their relationship and had to struggle at the bar like any other lawyer. 17. We do not mean to say that all lawyers who have close relations as Judges of the High Court are misusing that relationship. Some are scrupulously taking care that no one should lift a finger on this account. However, others are shamelessly taking advantage of this relationship.” 9. The perusal of impugned Judgment and order dated 17.12.1999 reveals that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order at the initial stage while issuing notice to the respondents of the claim petition. There is no whisper in the impugned order as to why and under what ground, the Tribunal has stayed the disciplinary proceedings against the claimant-opposite party No. 1. 10. Now, it is well-settled proposition of law that every order including an administrative, judicial or quasi judicial order, must be reasoned one. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason or enumerated the ground on which it has formed an opinion to stay the further disciplinary proceedings against the claimant-opposite party No. 1. 10. Now, it is well-settled proposition of law that every order including an administrative, judicial or quasi judicial order, must be reasoned one. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason or enumerated the ground on which it has formed an opinion to stay the further disciplinary proceedings against the claimant-opposite party No. 1. For convenience, the order dated 17.12.1999 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2155/1999 is reproduced as under : vkns'k fnukad 17.12.99 dh izfrfyfi 17.12.99 ;kph ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk ,oa izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku izLrqrdRrkZ vf/kdkjh mifLFkrA vkns'k lqukA xzghr ,oa iathd`r gksA fyf[kr foospuA izfr'kiFki= ,oa vUrfje vuqrks"k ij vkifRr ds fy, fnukad 11 Qjojh] 2000 fu;r djrs gq, izR;FkhZx.k dks uksfVl tkjh gksA bl chp izR;FkhZx.k dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os izeq[k lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds i= fnukad 01 uoEcj] 1999 ¼,&1½ vksSj vij egkfujh{kd fucU/kuA iz'kkluA ds i= fnukad 8 uoEcj ¼,&2½ ds vuqlj.k esa dksbZ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vkxs lEikfnr u djsA g0@,-ch- gtsyk] mik/;{k 11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel invited attention to a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in a case in Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri v. Union of India, 2013 (11) ADJ 22 , of which we were the Members, held as under : 196. The Supreme Court in a case in Seimens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v. Union of India and another, AIR 1976 SC 1785 , held as under : ‘’”6..............If Courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the ad judicatory process. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the ad judicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.” 197. In one another case in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Lunar, (2004)5 SCC 568 , their Lordships of Supreme Court held as under : “8......... Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made..........”. 198. In Mc Dermott International Inco. v. Buru Standard Co. Limited and others, (2006) SLT 345, their Lordships observed as under : “...Reason’ is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or action. It is in this sense that the award must state reasons for the amount awarded. The rationale of the requirement of reasons is that reasons assure that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which the arbitrator reached the conclusion which adversely affects the interests of a party. The contractual stipulation of reasons means, as held in Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration In Re, “proper, adequate reasons”. Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be a reason connected with the case which the Court can see is proper. Contradictory reasons are equal to lack of reasons................” 199. A Division Bench of this Court in a case in Vijai Shanker Tripathi v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 2007 LCD 1266, has considered the concept of exercise of discretionary power by the State or its authorities including the High Court held that every administrative order passed by authorities must fulfil the requirement of Art. 14 of the constitution. 200. Supreme Court in a case in M/s. Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Sh. 200. Supreme Court in a case in M/s. Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, JT 2010(9) SC 590, held that a cryptic order shall deem to suffer from vice of arbitrariness. An order passed by quasi judicial authority or even administrative authority must speak on its face. In a case in CCT v. Shukla and Brothers, 2010(4) SCC 785 , their Lordships held that the reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases. Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. To quote relevant portion from the judgment (supra), to quote : “Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principle are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements.” 201. The aforesaid view with regard to reasoned order by authorities which include judicial and quasi judicial authorities has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the authorities have to record reasons, otherwise it may become a tool for harassment vide K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447 ; State of Assam and another v. J.N. Roy Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2277 ; State of Punjab v. Kashmir Singh, 1997 SCC (L&S) 88; Union of India and others v. P. Thayagarajan, AIR 1999 SC 449 ; and Union of India v. K.D. Pandey and another, (2002)10 SCC 471 . In a recent judgment in Union of India v. Ibrahimuddin, AIR 2013 SCW 2752 (para 33), their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that every order passed by the administrative authority, judicial or quasi judicial must be a reasoned order. 202. From the foregoing discussion with regard to passing of a reasoned order by administrative, quasi judicial or judicial authorities, it appears that the law on the question has travelled a long way.” 12. 202. From the foregoing discussion with regard to passing of a reasoned order by administrative, quasi judicial or judicial authorities, it appears that the law on the question has travelled a long way.” 12. The impugned Judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal being a non speaking one, seems to be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While passing an interim order, the authority, judicial or quasi judicial or Tribunal, must assign justifiable reason while forming an opinion for granting the interim relief or adjudicating a controversy. 13. It has been rightly argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary that speaking and reasoned order is necessary not only to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but, also it is necessary for the maintenance of Rule of law. In a democratic polity, order or a decision where the citizen’s civil right is affected or functioning of the Government is interfered, must be speaking so that the citizen or Government may know the ground which has necessitated to form an opinion. In the event of disagreement, the citizen or the Government may approach the appropriate form for judicial review of the order passed by the Court, authority or Tribunal. Attention of the Court has been invited to a case in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2260 . Relevant portion (para 205) of the said case, for convenience, is reproduced as under : “205. Rule of Law postulates that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.” 14. In view of above, the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel seems to be correct. The Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by passing the interim order which amounts to grant of final relief. It is bad also because it does not assign any reason even precisely for staying the disciplinary proceedings pending in the Government. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 15. The Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by passing the interim order which amounts to grant of final relief. It is bad also because it does not assign any reason even precisely for staying the disciplinary proceedings pending in the Government. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 15. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned Judgment and order dated 17.12.1999 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2155/1999, Har Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and another, with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued directing the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow to decide the pending Claim Petition 2155/1999, in case already not decided, expeditiously say preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order. No order as to costs. —————