ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner inter alia assailed the validity of the order dated 2.2.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the appellate authority by which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by passing a non-speaking order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order dated 2.2.2015 passed by the appellate authority and submitted that the appellate authority has passed the impugned order in view of the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer and has not applied its own mind and therefore, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-application of mind. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the appellate authority has taken into account all the aspects of the matter and thereafter has passed a reasoned order, and the same does not call for any interference by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [ (1990)4 SCC 594 ], the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others [ (2010)3 SCC 732 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. 5. In the backdrop of the settled legal position, the impugned order may be seen. It is evident that the impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. 5. In the backdrop of the settled legal position, the impugned order may be seen. It is evident that the impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer. Relevant extract of the order reads as under :- ^^eq[; vfHk;ark ds i= fnukad 14-1-2015 ls izLrqr vfHker ,oa rF;kas ls Li"V gSa fd vihykFkhZ }kjk nks dk;Z vuqca/kkuqlkj le;&lhek esa iw.kZ ugha fd, x,A vfrfjDr le; fn, tkus ij dk;Z iw.kZ fd, ysfdu vuqca/k dh 'krksZ dk ikyu u djrs gq, dk;Z iw.kZ djus ds mijkar mu dk;k±s ijQkesZUl xkjaVh dh vof/k esa vuqcaèk dh 'krksZ dk ikyu u djrs gq, lq/kkj dk;Z laikfnr ugha fd;k x;kA bl izdkj ,d dk;Z viw.kZ NksM+k x;k ftls iw.kZ djus gsrq foHkkx dks vihykFkhZ ds gtsZ [kpsZ ij fufonk,a vkeaf=r djuk iM+hA vr% eq[; vfHk;ark }kjk vihykFkhZ dk fuyafcr fd;k x;k iath;u vkxkeh nks dSys.Mj o"kZ 2015 ,oa 2016 rd fuyafcr j[ks tkus dh vuq'kalk dh gSA^^ 6. From perusal of the relevant extract, it is evident that the appellate authority has passed the impugned order merely on the basis of the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer and has not applied its own mind. 7. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-application of mind, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. 8. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Prashant Sharma for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents/State.