JUDGMENT By the Court.—Vakalatnama filed by Sri I.H. Farooqui, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 1-Dr. Ashok Kumar is taken on record. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners-State and Sri I.H. Farooqui, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioners-State have sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.4.2015 passed by opposite party No. 2-State Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 303 of 2013 (Dr. Ashok Kumar v. The State of U.P. and another), whereby learned Tribunal has quashed the punishment order dated 22.2.2012 with the observation that the petitioner (opposite party No. 1) is entitled for all consequential benefits. 5. Submission of learned Standing Counsel is that a show-cause notice was issued to opposite party No. 1 on 28.7.2011 calling his explanation to the effect that while he was posted at Community Health Centre, Loni, Ghaziabad he conducted medico-legal examination of Mr. Abdul Rauf but he did not found any sign of wound on his person whereas on the same day Mr. Abdul Rauf was examined by Dr. Sunil Kumar Kamboj, Medical Superintendent of the District Jail, Dasna, who found fracture in right hand and there was swelling on left hand upto 6x4 cm. The contesting opposite party No. 1 submitted reply on 16.8.2011 and the punishing authority after considering the reply of opposite party No. 1 passed punishment order stopping one annual increment and giving censure entry in his service record. Opposite party No. 1 challenged the punishment order before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal by the impugned order quashed the punishment order with the observation that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits alongwith the increments and its arrears. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that since the Tribunal found a procedural irregularity in passing the punishment order, therefore, instead of quashing the punishment order, the matter ought to have been remitted to the disciplinary authority. Hence, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that since the Tribunal found a procedural irregularity in passing the punishment order, therefore, instead of quashing the punishment order, the matter ought to have been remitted to the disciplinary authority. Hence, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. On the contrary, submission of learned counsel for the private opposite party is that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned Tribunal as the learned Tribunal has examined all aspects of the matter and found that the order of punishment is a non-speaking one and has been passed without considering the reply of opposite party No. 1. 8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record along the impugned order. 9. The private opposite party in his reply explained the shortcoming in medical report of Dr. Sunil Kumar Kamboj but the punishing authority without considering the explanation of opposite party No. 1 passed the punishment order without giving any reason for not agreeing with the explanation of opposite party No. 1. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be a speaking and reasoned order is correct. Recording of reasons by a quasi judicial authority is one of essential factors. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer some of the decision of the Apex Court in this context: 10. Highlighting the importance of a reasoned order the Hon’ble Apex Cout in Raj Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Bihar and others, 2006 SCC (L&S) 679, has held as under: “Without going into other issues raised, we are of the view that the impugned order of the respondent authority imposing punishment on the appellant cannot be sustained. Even if we assume that Rule 55-A which pertains to minor punishment was applicable and not Rule 55 which relates to major punishments, nevertheless Rule 55-A requires that the punishment prescribed therein cannot be passed unless the representation made pursuant to the show-cause notice, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show-cause notice were, in fact, considered. There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show-cause notice were, in fact, considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside.” 11. A distinction between “reason” and “conclusion” has been spelt out by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kaoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836 , it has been held as under: “Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.” 12. In Kranti Association (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmad Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 510-11, it has been held that passing of a reasoned order is mandatory requirement of the principles of nature justice. 13. In G. Valli Kumar v. Andhra Education Society, 2010 (2) SCC 497 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “that the requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facts of the rules of nature justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned.” 14. So far as the submission of learned Standing Counsel with regard to remittance of the matter to the disciplinary authority is concerned, it may be pointed out that where the procedure has been adopted for major punishment and during the course of enquiry any defect has occurred then in such circumstances, the matter ought to have been remitted for further proceeding from the stage of defect but in the present case, minor punishment has been given after calling explanation from the delinquent employee, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to remit the matter. In these circumstances, the assertion of the petitioners is unacceptable. 15. In view of above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the assertion of the petitioners is unacceptable. 15. In view of above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.