JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner was working as Asst. Master (Odia) in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar. On 23.07.2010, a written complaint was lodged by Smt. Sabita Patra, Asst. Master alleging therein that on 22.07.2010 at 12.00 hours in the staff room the petitioner used abusive/un-parliamentary languages on her and thrown the mark sheet on her in the presence of other staff members, showing disrespect to the sanctity of the profession. Pursuant thereto, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2010 under Annexure-1, that the acts of the petitioner were unbecoming on the part of a public servant under the relevant conduct rules of Sainik School Society Rules and Regulations, 1997 (for short “Regulations, 1997”), and therefore, she was called upon to give explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, why suitable disciplinary action should not been initiated against her. 2. The petitioner submitted her show cause reply on 04.09.2010 denying the allegations as untrue and requested to exonerate her. The same being found unsatisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and a memorandum dated 26.09.2010 with five charges pertaining to her alleged misbehavior and misconduct with Smt. Sabita Patra, Asst. Master on 22.07.2010 at 12.00 hours. In the said memorandum dated 26.09.2010, the petitioner was called upon to submit written statement of defence within ten days and further to state whether she desired to be heard in person. 3. Upon receipt of the memorandum dated 26.09.2010, the petitioner submitted representation before opposite party no.2 seeking for supply of certain documents, the details of which were mentioned therein, failing which she will be seriously prejudiced and handicapped in preparing and submitting her written statement of defence. Such representation of the petitioner was rejected by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 05.10.2010 on the pretext that the same was not permissible under the relevant rules before proposed inquiry, and the petitioner was directed to submit her written statement of defence on or before 07.10.2010 positively. On 07.10.2010, the petitioner gave another representation reiterating her request for supply of the documents listed in Annexure-III to the memorandum of charge and to allow her seven days time thereafter to prepare and submit her required written statement of defence. In response to the said representation, the opposite party no. On 07.10.2010, the petitioner gave another representation reiterating her request for supply of the documents listed in Annexure-III to the memorandum of charge and to allow her seven days time thereafter to prepare and submit her required written statement of defence. In response to the said representation, the opposite party no. 2 replied vide letter dated 16.11.2010 asking the petitioner to obtain copies of the documents from the Inquiring Officer and submit her written statement of defence by 18.11.2010 positively. 4. On 18.11.2010, the petitioner, without having the copies of the relevant documents, filed her preliminary written statement of defence pleading that the charges were baseless and concocted against her and also indicated that she had narrated about the happenings that had occurred on 22.07.2010 to Mr. S.K. Garai and Mr. M.A. Sakur, Senior Masters and requested them to look into her problems. Without considering the preliminary written statement, opposite party no.2 vide order dated 19.11.2010 constituted a Board of Inquiry comprising Sri S.K. Garai, Sr. Master as Inquiry Officer; Sri G.K. Godkar, Master and Sri K. Mishra, Asst. Master as members. The petitioner appeared before the Board of Inquiry on 08.12.2010 and participated in the inquiry. On that date, the inquiry was concluded and, without supplying copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and without giving her opportunity to file show cause, she was served with order dated 21.04.2011 of opposite party no.2, as disciplinary authority, in which she was imposed with the punishment of “withholding of her increment of pay for 02 years with cumulative effect”. 5. Against the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 27.05.2011 with the prayer to call for the records and after going through the same to recall the order of punishment by exonerating her from the alleged charges. Though the petitioner reminded to the appellate authority vide letters dated 03.09.2011 and 16.10.2012 for disposal of appeal, since no action was taken, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6895 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 26.04.2012 directing opposite party no.1 to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and take a decision thereon as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Finally, the petitioner received a communication dated 03.08.2012 from opposite party no.2 in which the petitioner was informed that the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and held that the penalty imposed on her was wholly and fully justified, hence this application. 6. Mr. B.S.Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the order imposing penalty by the disciplinary authority and that confirmed by appellate authority cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of the fact that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the report of the Board of inquiry and, as such, she was not given opportunity to represent on the report of the Board of Inquiry as per Rule 10.10 of the Regulations, 1997. The order imposing penalty of “withholding of her increment of pay for 02 years with cumulative effect”, having not been contemplated under the regulations itself, cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that withholding of increment of pay has been prescribed as minor penalty under Chapter-X, but withholding increment of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty. As such, Chapter-X of the Regulations, 1997 does not contemplate any punishment of withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect. Therefore, if a punishment has not been prescribed under the Rules, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 21.04.2011 vide Annexure-9, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 03.08.2012 vide Annexure-11 thus cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of the fact that the same have been passed without assigning any reason. 7. Mr. L. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 contended that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, as well as appellate authority in Annexurres-9 and 11 respectively are wholly and fully justified and, as such, if action has been taken against the erring Asst. Master, the same does not call for interference by this Court, for which the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 8. This Court heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Jena, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 and 2, and perused the records. Master, the same does not call for interference by this Court, for which the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 8. This Court heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Jena, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 and 2, and perused the records. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 9. The scheme to establish Sainik Schools was introduced in 1961 with the primary aim of preparing boys academically, physically and mentally for entry into the National Defence Service. The Sainik Schools are managed by a Society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the Sainik Schools are started in various parts of the country, which includes Bhubaneswar, which was started w.e.f. 01.02.1962. A Board of Governors, functioning under the Chairmanship of the Defence Minister, is the Chief Executive Body of the Sainik Schools Society, which will meet at least once a year as often as is considered necessary by the Chairman. Each school has a Local Board of Administration for overseeing the function of the School and its finances. With a view to exercising closer control and supervision over the affairs of Sainik Schools, there is an Executive Committee under the Chairmanship of Defence Secretary. The Committee will meet at least twice a year. Therefore, the other authorities of different rank from the defence have been allowed to discharge the duty in consonance with the constitution of Society itself. 10. Chapter-X of Regulation 1997 deals with discipline. Clause-10.01 states about penalties. Sub-Clause (a) of Clause-10.01 envisages about minor penalties. The procedure for awarding minor penalties has also been indicated from Clause-10.04 to Clause10.06. The procedure for awarding major penalties has been indicated from Clause-10.07 to Clause-10.13. Clause 10.19 states about complaints/petitions/representations/appeals. Procedure for appeals/representations/complaints etc. has been indicated in Clause-10.20. The above clauses are reproduced below: “PENALTIES 10.01 The penalties, given underneath in ascending order of severity, may, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing after carrying out such inquiries as deemed fit according to the circumstances of each case be imposed by the Principal on any member of the Staff. has been indicated in Clause-10.20. The above clauses are reproduced below: “PENALTIES 10.01 The penalties, given underneath in ascending order of severity, may, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing after carrying out such inquiries as deemed fit according to the circumstances of each case be imposed by the Principal on any member of the Staff. The Principal may also in his discretion issue a written warning or reprimand to any employee of the school, if he is satisfied that the merits of the case do not justify imposition of any of the prescribed penalties and merely a written warning or a reprimand would be adequate and have the salutary effect. (a) Minor Penalties i. Censure ii. Withholding of promotion of a specified period, where applicable; iii. Recovery from pay, of the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss caused to the school by negligence of breach of orders; iv. Withholding of increments of pay. (b) Major Penalties i. Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the employee will earn increments of pay during their period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his post; ii. Reduction to a lower grade of pay or post of time-scale of pay which shall ordinary be a bar to his/her promotion to the grade, post or time scale of pay from which he was reduced with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade, post or time scale of pay from which reduced and his seniority on such restoration; iii. Removal from service, which will not ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment in Sainik Schools; iv. Dismissal from service, which will be a disqualification for future employment in Sainik School. 10.02 The member of staff so punished shall have the right to appeal against any of the penalties imposed on him to (a) (iv) and (b) (i) and (b) (ii) above shall be addressed to the Chairman of the Local Board of Administration, whereas those against penalties at (b) (iii) & (b) (iv) shall be addressed to the Chairman, Board of Governors,. All appeals shall, however, be forwarded through proper channel i.e. the Principal and the Chairman, L.B.A. who will record their own views on such appeals. 10.03 Before imposing the penalties of removal or dismissal from service, the Principal will obtain prior written approval for the proposed action from the Chairman, L.B.A., and for this purpose submit full facts of the case together with the justification for his recommended action against the errant employee. Ananta employee on probation will not, however, have the right to appeal against the orders terminating his services, because such an action is not in the nature of a recognised penalty and successful completion of probation period to the satisfaction of the Principal is obligatory. PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING MINOR PENALTIES 10.04 A statement of misconduct, misbehavior, or indiscipline for which action is proposed to be taken against him, shall be drawn up as a charge-sheet and served on the employee in the form of a show cause notice. The employee will be given reasonable time of not less than 10 clear days from the date on which such a notice is served, within which he may submit his defence, if any. The employee shall also be asked to name one of the school employees as Defence Assistant if he so chooses. 10.05 Based on the reply of the charge sheet served, and other evidence brought to his notice, the Principal will decide whether the employee is guilty or not, and impose the penalty that he may deem fit. Orders in this regard shall be communicated to the employee in writing and entries to that effect made in his service records. 10.06 For minor offences, no formal inquiry will be normally necessary. However, after considering the employee’s reply to the charge sheet, if the Principal is of the opinion that the meter should be investigated further, or feels that the offence actually committed will more serious than that stated in the charge sheet, he will take further appropriate action envisaged for imposing major penalties. PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING MAJOR PENALTIES. However, after considering the employee’s reply to the charge sheet, if the Principal is of the opinion that the meter should be investigated further, or feels that the offence actually committed will more serious than that stated in the charge sheet, he will take further appropriate action envisaged for imposing major penalties. PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING MAJOR PENALTIES. 10.07 Whenever the Principal is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the circumstances leading to the commission of an offence that may necessitate award of a major penalty, he will call for an explanation of the employee in the same manner as provided in Rule 10.04 and in the light of reply given by the employee in his defence, the Principal will order an oral inquiry which shall be presided over by the Headmaster or the Registrar and have at least 2 members of the civilian staff of the school appointed as members of the Court of Inquiry. The Principal shall also appoint one of the employees, who is fully conversant with facts of the case, as the Presenting Officer. The affected employee shall be given full freedom to examine all witnesses and to produce any witnesses and/documents in his support, and the entire proceedings of the Court of Inquiry will be conducted in his presence. Where more than one employee is involved, a common court of inquiry may be ordered to inquire into the case and apportion blame/guilt to any or all such employees together. 10.08 The employee shall have no right to request for inquiry into his conduct by an officer other than the Presiding Officer of the Court of Inquiry but members of the Court of Inquiry so constituted can be changed by the Principal on receipt of a representation from the employee if he feels that such a change is necessary to obtain unbiased findings. 10.09. On receipt of the Court of Inquiry report, the Principal shall record his agreement or disagreement with the findings of the inquiry on each article of the charges referred to the Court of Inquiry, giving reasons wherever he disagrees with the findings. The Principal can remit the case again to the Court of Inquiry for further inquiry, if in his opinion such further inquiry is necessary in certain aspects not unrevealed during the inquiry already held. The Principal can remit the case again to the Court of Inquiry for further inquiry, if in his opinion such further inquiry is necessary in certain aspects not unrevealed during the inquiry already held. 10.10 Based on the opinion of the Court of Inquiry as accepted by the Principal, the employee shall he given one more chance to submit a written statement of defence by serving him with a show cause notice containing the statement of findings of the Court of Inquiry. He will be required to submit a reply within a specified time which shall not be less than 10 days. 10.11 After considering the written reply from the employee and taking into account all other relevant evidence the Principal shall determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on him. He may make the order as he deems fit, and serve it on the employee except the penalty of removal from service and dismissal from service and entries in respect of the penalty imposed will be made in the service records of the concerned employee. 10.12. An error, or a technical defect in the procedure followed before imposing a penalty, may be disregarded by the appellate authority, if such authority considers that the error was not material and has neither caused injustice nor affected the decision in the case. The reasons for the above decision must, however, be recorded in writing. 10.13 The Board of Governors or the Chairman, LBA may call for any papers relating to disciplinary proceedings and final action in such a case will pend till discretions from the higher authority are received by the Principal. COMPLAINTS/PETITIONS/REPRESENTATIONS/APPEALS 10.19 Every Sainik School employee has the right to submit complaints, petitions, representations and appeals to the superior authority viz, the Chairman, Local Board of Administration, or the Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society. PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL/REPRESENTATIONS/COMPLAINTS ETC. 10.20 The following procedure will be followed for submitting, forwarding and disposing off the appeals, representations, complaints and petitions : (a) All appeals and representations addressed appropriately to the superior authority, must be handed over the Principal, who will give his comments on it and forward it to the authority addressed, as expeditiously as possible. For Sainik Schools employees “Superior Authority” would mean Chairman, LBA of the concerned school or the Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society. For Sainik Schools employees “Superior Authority” would mean Chairman, LBA of the concerned school or the Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society. (b) Appeals will be made through proper channel as under : i. Principal ii. Chairman, L.B.A. of the concerned school iii. Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society, who will be the final appellate authority. Notes :- In the case of penalties awarded by the Principal the following additional provisions will be applicable :- (a) An employee who considers himself aggrieved by an order passed against him, the findings of a Court of Inquiry, or a penalty imposed on him, has the right to submit a petition against such order, findings or penalty. The channel of submission of petition will be the same as already mentioned above. Unless the redress asked for is granted by the Principal or by the Chairman of the LBA, the petition will be forwarded to the Chairman, Board of Governors with the comments/remarks of the Principal and the Chairman LBA. (b) The Appellate authorities shall take the following action on petitions :- (i) With or without conditions, which the person punished accepts, pardon or remit the whole or any part of the punishment awarded. (ii) Mitigate the punishment awarded. (iii) Commute the said punishment to any punishment lower in the scale of punishments. (iv) Enhance the penalty imposed. (c) An appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority shall be made within 30 days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant. The appellate authority may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient valid reason for not preferring the appeal in time. (d) If the Chairman LBA or the Chairman Board of Governors, to whom the petition is forwarded, does not consider the petitioner entitled to any of the reliefs mentioned above, he will reject the petition. The order of the Chairman Board of Governors, who is the ultimate appellate authority shall be final. (e) The petition will be addressed by the aggrieved employee personally and not by his representative or a duly constituted attorney.” In Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause 10.01(a) under Regulations, 1997 provisions have been made for withholding increments of pay. The order of the Chairman Board of Governors, who is the ultimate appellate authority shall be final. (e) The petition will be addressed by the aggrieved employee personally and not by his representative or a duly constituted attorney.” In Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause 10.01(a) under Regulations, 1997 provisions have been made for withholding increments of pay. More so, there is no provision in Regulations, 1997 for withholding the increment of pay with cumulative effect. 11. In Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 212, the apex Court held that the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be awarded. 12. Withholding increment of pay for a period of two years with a cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority, having not been contemplated under the rules itself, in view of the principle laid down by the apex Court in Vijay Singh (supra), cannot be sustainable. 13. On perusal of the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority on 21.04.2011 in Annexure-9, as well as the order of conformation made by the appellate authority on 03.08.2012 in Annexure-11, it is seen that no reason has been assigned by both the authorities. 14. Franz Schubert said- “Reason is nothing but analysis of belief.” In Black’s Law Dictionary, reason has been defined as a- “faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from facts or from propositions.” It means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for what they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. 15. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 it has been held that 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 and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision 8 reached. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision 8 reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 . 16. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the appellate authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference to those given by the original authority. Similar view has also been taken in Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (1) OLR 5 and Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited and others, 2017 (1) OLR 625. Applying these principles to the present context, since neither the disciplinary authority, nor the appellate authority, has assigned any reason, the orders passed by them cannot sustain. 17. As it appears, in the counter affidavit at paragraph-13, a series of contentions have been raised justifying the reasons for passing the orders impugned. It is stated that on several occasions, the petitioner was warned for different scores, therefore, such action was taken against the petitioner. The counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties justifying the reason is not permissible, because the order passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-9 dated 21.04.2011 and that passed by the appellate authority in Annexure-11 dated 03.08.2012 bear no reason. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit read thus: “12. That the petitioner continued with violation of conduct rules by involving herself in indiscipline activities despite repeated counseling, warning and even imposition of minor penalties, Since no improvement in the conduct and the behavior of the petitioner has been noticed, it was felt expedient to impose the minor penalty of withholding of increment of pay for two years with cumulative effect with due approval of the Chairman, Local Board of Administration conveyed vide order dated 31 Mar (copy enclosed as Annexure-R/3) 2010 in the interest of the Institution and the Students. In the instant case imposition of minor penalty was inevitable as warning issued from time to time to the petitioner did not bring any change in her conduct. As the general behavior and attitude of the petitioner was adversely affecting the discipline and atmosphere of the school, it was expedient in the interest of the Institution which is entrusted with the responsibility to built the career and character of pupil to impose the minor penalty on the petitioner to maintain discipline and to save the institution. 13. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner during the period of her service as Asst. Master (Odia) used to indulge in indiscipline activities, which were detrimental to the general discipline of the School. The list of warning and other disciplinary measures initiated against the petitioner during the period of her service are mentioned below:- Date of appointment-01 Jan 1994 (i) A COI was ordered vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 21 Jul 1997 in connection with investigation into the report of irregularities/misbehavior reported against her by Shri Gurabari Rannayak, father of School no. 3807. (ii) Minor penalty “CENSURE” awarded based on the report of COI. (iii) Issued a warning vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 DATED 08 Aug 1997 on punishment to students, disrespecting the advice of the Headmaster. (iv) Issued advisory note vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 27 Sep 1997 on punishment to students Cdt Punyabit Kanungo, School No. 3666, Class-VIIIB. (v) Issued a warning vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 18 Apr 1998 for making false allegations against colleagues and non completion of assignment in time. (vi) Issued a Show cause Notice vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 23 Jun 1998 for absent fro Class VIC on 19 Jun 1998 (vii) Issued a warning vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 06 Jul 1998 for absent from classes. (viii) Issued a Show Cause Notice vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 20 Jul 1998 in connection with quarrel with her colleague Miss Anita Tripathy. (ix) Issued warning vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 22 Aug 1998 for using foul language on colleagues. (x) Issued a Warning letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 11 Mar 1999 for casual attitude towards duties. (xi) Issued a counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 27 Jul 2000 for late reporting in classes. (xii) Issued a counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 30 Aug 2000 on late reporting to class and improvement in conducting the classes. (xiii) Issued a Warning letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 11 Mar 1999 for casual attitude towards duties. (xi) Issued a counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 27 Jul 2000 for late reporting in classes. (xii) Issued a counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 30 Aug 2000 on late reporting to class and improvement in conducting the classes. (xiii) Issued a Warning letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 12 Sep 2000 reporting late during guided studies. (xiv) Issued a counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 28 Feb 2001 for improvement in the performance. (xv) Issued a Warning letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 17 Mar 2001 for absence from the classes. (xvi) Issued a show cause vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 25 Sep 2001 for absent from class IX during guided study without any valid reason/intimation. (xvii) Issued a warning vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 01 Oct 2001 for absent from classes during guided study. (xviii) Issued a counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 12 Feb 2002 for not giving attention towards duties and not behaving in a manner befitting to a teacher. (xix) Issued Warning letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 29 Jun 2002 for being absent from School activities. (xx) Issued counseling letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 26 Jul 2002 for not maintaining punctuality. (xxi) Issued warning letter vide no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 21 Nov. 2002 for taking leave on flimsy ground. (xxii) Issued show cause notice vide letter no. SSB/1008/PC/1216 dated 06 May 2009 based on allegations received from the parents.” The order of the disciplinary authority in Annexure-9 dated 21.04.2011 and that of the appellate authority in Annexure-11 dated 03.08.2012 do not bear any reason. But, by filing the counter affidavit, as mentioned above, the authorities have tried to justify their action by giving a subsequent explanation, which is not permissible in law. 18. The apex Court in Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 held as follows: “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 19. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 19. The Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 held : “…… when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old. 20. In view of the judgments of the apex Court, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that if the orders in Annexure-9 and 11 do not contain any reason, the authority cannot justify the same by filing counter affidavit subsequently, which is contrary to the provisions of law. Consequentially, the orders so passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-9 dated 21.04.2011 and the appellate authority in Annexure-11 dated 03.08.2012 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. 21. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order to cost.