Judgment 1. The failure on the part of the revisional authority to supplement reasons in support of his order made the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. While the petitioner was working as Tahsildar, the third respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under Section 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules. The third respondent ultimately passed an order, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The said order was modified by the second respondent as one of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect. The order passed by the appellate authority was challenged before the first respondent, in his capacity as the revisional authority. The revisional authority confirms the order without giving reasons. 3. The revision petition before the first respondent was a statutory revision. The first respondent was expected to consider the question as to whether the third respondent was correct in imposing the punishment. The first respondent, while rejecting the revision, simply stated that the petitioner has not produced any new material to arrive at a different finding. The question is not as to whether the petitioner has produced any new material. The revisional authority was expected to consider the materials already on record and to give a finding as to whether the authorities below were correct in arriving at the conclusion. 4. The orders passed by the statutory authorities should be supplemented by reasons. It is more so, in cases, wherein, the orders are subjected to appeal or revision. 5. The Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. Goyal Enterprises Vs State of Jharkand and Another reported in 2008 (3) Scale, observed that reason is the heart-beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. The Supreme Court further held that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. “The emphasis on recording reasons it that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 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. 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; in other words; a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 6. The order passed by the first respondent is bereft of details. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the first respondent. 7. In the result, the impugned order, dated 13.11.2013, is set aside and the matter is remitted to first respondent for fresh consideration. 8. The first respondent is directed to consider the revision petition afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. 07.08.2014.