ORDER 1. This case is called out and taken up from the category of “HIGH COURT EXPEDITED CASES-OTHER THAN ABOVE”. 2. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the orders of recovery passed against all the four petitioners who were holding the post of Forest Guard at the relevant point of time. 3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that charge sheet for minor punishment under rule 16 of the M.P. Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for brevity, “CCA Rules”) dated 16.2.1999 vide Annexrue P-10 was issued alleging certain misconduct asking the petitioner to show cause. Thereafter it seems that minor punishment of withholding of one increment non-cumulatively along with recovery of different sums of money was inflicted against each of the petitioners vide order dated 22.9.2000 (Annexure P-11). 4.1. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal in OA No.116/2001 which came to be disposed of in motion on 20.2.2001 vide Annexure P-12 by holding that no mind was applied by the disciplinary authority as regards individual liabilities of the petitioners/employees and proportion of loss caused to the Government by each petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order was quashed by the Tribunal and the employer was granted liberty to take action afresh in accordance with law. 4.2. Thereafter show cause notice dated 14.5.2001(vide Annexure P-13) was issued to each of the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why two increments be not withheld non-cumulatively and appropriate amount be not recovered from them as a measure of punishment. The said show cause notice details the loss suffered by the Government in regard to each “Phad”. However, no details were given or mentioned about how the quantification of loss was done in regard to loss caused by each of the petitioners. Similar show cause notices were issued to all the petitioners. It transpires from the record that petitioners did not respond to the said show cause notice which led to passing of the cyclostyled impugned penalty orders (Annexures P-5 to P-8) in which the only punishment imposed was recovery of certain amount of money and issuance of warning. The appeals preferred against said penalties order were also dismissed as informed vide Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-4. 5. The appeals preferred against said penalties order were also dismissed as informed vide Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-4. 5. Learned counsel for the State defended the order passed by stating that loss has been caused due to misconduct of petitioners and yet minor punishment has been imposed and therefore no interference is called for. 6. From perusal of the orders of the disciplinary authority (Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-8), it is evident that there are no findings as to how quantification of the recoverable sum was made qua each of the petitioners. 6.1 Reasons are heartbeat of every judicial order and every administrative order entailing adverse civil consequences which are conspicuously missing in the case at hand. The authority appears to have not learnt from it's earlier mistake which was criticized by the Tribunal, and has reiterated the same mistake of non-application of mind. It is further surprising to note that the disciplinary authority despite being a senior officer and a member of one of the All India Services, has committed a mistake of elementary nature not expected of an Officer of the rank of Divisional Forest Officer. 6.2. The principle of natural justice in the least mandates that every administrative order causing adverse consequence should necessarily contain reasons. The disciplinary authority seems to have filled up blank spaces in the pre-printed/cyclostyled form while passing the impugned penalty orders vide Annexures P-5 to P-8 which are thus vitiated by vice of non-application of mind rendering them unsustainable on the anvil of rule 27(2) of the 1966 rules. Surprisingly the appellate authority has not noticed the cardinal mistake committed by the disciplinary authority. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in the following terms :- (i) The impugned orders Annexures P-1 to P-8 are quashed with grant of all consequential benefits as if impugned order had not been passed. (ii) The employer is at liberty to take fresh action but only after following the due process of law. (iii) Since petitioners have been compelled twice to knock the doors of the Court for prosecuting frivolous cause which ought not to have arisen in the first place they are entitled to cost which is quantified at Rs.1,000/- to each of the petitioners which shall be paid to them by the State within three months of communication of this order.