JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25/08/2010 in Special Civil Application No.8217/2010 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition summarily confirming the order passed by respondent no.1 dated 22/02/2010 whereby the appellant herein-original petitioner has been removed from service, the appellant herein-original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2.0 Shri N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reasons while dismissing the petition summarily and confirming the order passed by respondent no.1 removing the appellant herein original petitioner from service. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and, therefore, on the aforesaid ground alone the same is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the same afresh on its own merits. 2.1 Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Horticulture Punjab v. Jagjivan Parshad reported in 2008 (5) SCC 539 ; in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers reported in 2010 (4) SCC 785 and in the case of S.M. Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 in support of his submissions on the reasons to be assigned. 2.2 It is submitted that in the case of S.M. Mukherjee (Supra) it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice and a right to reason is therefore an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the tribunal itself. It is submitted that therefore as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the tribunal itself. It is submitted that therefore as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice. 2.3 Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original petitioner has also heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shroff Engineering Ltd. v. Mistry Priteshbhai Rameshbhai rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1353/2011 in which the learned Division Bench had an occasion to consider in extenso the requirement of reasons to be supplied/given. Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original petitioner has also heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Koli Bijalbhai Nathubhai v. V.C. Trivedi, Joint Secretary reported in (2004) 7 GHJ (102 ). Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Single to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. 3.0 Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP has tried to oppose the present Appeal by submitting that looking to the serious allegations made against the appellant and the inquiry report holding the appellant guilty for misconduct and the charges proved against the appellant, as such, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the petition. However, is not in a position to dispute that as such while dismissing the petition summarily no reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the learned Single Judge and/or that the order is a non-speaking order. Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP has submitted that in case this Court proposes to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge it may be observed that this Court has not expressed anything on merits in favour of the appellant herein-original petitioner and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid ground alone. 4.0 Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein-original petitioner challenged the order of removal from service before the learned Single Judge. 4.0 Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein-original petitioner challenged the order of removal from service before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application summarily and passed the following order; "By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22/02/2010 passed by respondent no.1 authority whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. Keeping in mind the inquiry report and the serious allegations, the view taken by the authority is just and proper. I do not want to exercise my discretionary power in favour of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed." From the aforesaid it appears and it cannot be disputed that no reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition summarily. The learned Single Judge, as such, was required to give some reasons while dismissing the petition summarily, more particularly, when the question was with respect to removal of the appellant herein-original petitioner from service. 4.1 In the case of Director, Horticulture Punjab (Supra) in paragraph nos.7 and 8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised and has observed as under; "7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, 1971 1 AIIER 1148 "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, 1974 1 CR 120 it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amount to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." 8. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is 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. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the statutory requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the statutory 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 (See: Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC 364 )" 4.2 In the case of S.M. Mukherjee (Supra) while putting the emphasis on recording of the reasons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under; "Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice." 4.3 In the case of Notified Area Committee v. Additional Director, Consolidation and Ors. reported in (2002) 10 SCC 87 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under; "...........The reasons are the flesh and blood of judicial adjudication and such reasons must be shown in the orders which are liable to be challenged in the superior court......" 9. Under the circumstances, as in the impugned order dated 03/06/2003 no reasons are assigned for rejecting the revision application and confirming the order dated 26/05/1997 passed by the Collector, the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional authority is required to be quashed and set aside as it is against the principles of natural justice and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad for deciding the Revision Application No.15 of 1997 afresh in accordance and on merits and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Such an exercise is required to be carried out by the revisional authority as early as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Such an exercise is required to be carried out by the revisional authority as early as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent." 4.4 Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench in the case of Shroff Engineering Ltd. (Supra) as some what similar order was passed by the learned Single Bench allowing the petition and setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal without assigning any reasons and having found that the order was without any reasons, the Division Bench after considering catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point had quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision. 5.0 In view of the above and on the aforesaid ground alone the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. However, it is made clear and it is observed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside on the aforesaid ground alone and we have not expressed anything on merits in favour the appellant herein. 6.0 With this, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Letters Patent Appeal allowed to an extent.