JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI,J. - The petitioner, who was working as Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, has filed this application to quash letter dated 26.10.2005 in Annexure-6, whereby direction has been given for recovery of excess amount paid under IB/ACA/Reimbursement due to illegal allotment of agency of Sri D.K. Mandal, vide Agency Code No. 00268/59C. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was initially recruited as an Apprentice Development Officer under the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Sambalpur Division-opposite party no.3. He was confirmed in the month of November, 1994 and posted as Development Officer under the Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Panposh Branch, Rourkela-opposite party no.4. As per practice, for procurement of business, the Development Officers are authorized to recruit agents and accordingly code numbers are allotted by the Divisional Office in favour of those agents. Following the said process, one Sri D.K. Mandal was recruited by one Sri Pandey, Development Officer and agency code was allotted by the Divisional Office opposite party no.3, accordingly he was working under Sri Pandey who was working as Development Officer in Panposh Branch. 3. After confirmation of the petitioner as Development Officer in Panposh Branch, the opposite party no.3, vide letter dated 24.10.1996, allotted agent Sri D.K. Mandal to work under him. While the agent Sri D.K. Mandal was working, the petitioner all on a sudden received letter dated 06.08.2002 from opposite party no.3 detaching Sri Mandal from the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that all the benefits including IB/ACA/Reimbursement paid in excess will be recovered from the petitioner and the details of the recovery will be informed to the petitioner shortly. On receipt of such letter, the petitioner submitted his representation on 07.10.2002 to opposite party no.3 through opposite party no.4 to consider the matter and take a decision, as he is no way responsible for any deed done by Sri D.K. Mandal, and neither he is a recruiting authority nor he had directed Sri Mandal to work under him for procurement of the benefits to the Corporation. 4. 4. On receipt of such representation dated 07.10.2002, the opposite party no.4, vide letter dated 25.11.2002, forwarded the same to opposite party no.3 recommending that agent Sri D.K. Mandal should be retained under the organization of the petitioner, as while working under the petitioner the concerned agent had been continuing as number one agent of opposite party no.4, but no action was taken by the authority. Consequentially, a reminder was issued on 30.06.2005 by the petitioner requesting opposite party no.4 to restore the agency of Sri Mandal under his organization. But on 26.10.2005, it was informed to the petitioner that an excess amount of Rs.3,10,864/- would be recovered from the petitioner towards payment of excess amount by the agent Sri D.K. Mandal. On receipt of such letter dated 26.10.2005, the petitioner again filed a representation on 03.11.2005 to opposite party no.4 to consider his case, but no action was taken. Consequentially, the petitioner has been put to heavy financial loss. Hence this application. 5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had never opted Sri D.K. Mandal as an agent to work under his organization. Rather, it is opposite party no.3, who vide his letter dated 24.10.1996 allotted Sri D.K. Mandal to the organization of the petitioner and as such, while he was working under the petitioner, due to sincere efforts of the petitioner Mr. D.K. Mandal, agent became number one agent under the opposite party no.4 and procured the business for the opposite parties, for which the opposite parties have enjoyed financial benefits. But reason best known to opposite parties no.3 and 4, the excess amount has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner, which is arbitrary, unreasonable, and more particularly no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner for recovery of such amount nor the order itself indicates the reasons for such recovery, therefore, seeks for quashing of the same. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties strenuously urged justifying the order of recovery of excess amount from the petitioner, vide letter dated 26.10.2005, and stated that as the agent Sri D.K. Mandal was working under the petitioner, if any loss has been caused to the Corporation, the same has to be recovered from him, and thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in issuing such letter, which does not warrant any inference by this Court at this stage. 7. We have heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, and perused the records. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 8. The facts delineated above are undisputed. On perusal of the order-sheets of the case, it appears that this Court issued notice to the opposite parties on 22.12.2005 and also passed an interim order to the extent that as an interim measure operation of the direction contained in letter dated 26.10.2005 (Annexure-6) shall remain stayed till the next date. Pursuant to the notice issued to opposite parties no.1 to 4, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel and associates appeared in the case on 20.07.2015, but till date no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. When the matter was listed on 24.04.2018, request was made on behalf of the opposite parties seeking three weeks time to file counter affidavit and accordingly the matter was adjourned granting three weeks time to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit and further two weeks time was granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit and it was directed that the matter shall be listed in the week commencing 16.07.2018. Although the matter was listed today (17.07.2018), the opposite parties have not filed any counter affidavit, therefore filing of rejoinder affidavit at this stage does not arise. In any case, since the opposite parties have not filed their counter affidavit and the matter is pending since 2005 and in the meantime more than 12 years have elapsed, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time and proceeds with the matter on the basis of the pleadings available on record itself. In any case, since the opposite parties have not filed their counter affidavit and the matter is pending since 2005 and in the meantime more than 12 years have elapsed, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time and proceeds with the matter on the basis of the pleadings available on record itself. Though initially it was decided to dispose of the matter applying the doctrine of nontraverse, since Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued the case, without filing any counter affidavit, the same was taken into consideration and this case proceeded with the hearing on merits. 9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.10.2005, it appears that referring to the Divisional Office’s letters dated 27.05.2005, 22.06.2005, 24.06.2005 and 18.10.2005, the appraisal of the petitioner was reopened. But it is contended that due to wrong allotment of agency of Sri D.K. Mandal, an excess payment has been made for each appraisal period as per the calculation and the same relates to different appraisal periods, as mentioned in the letter itself. Consequentially, total amount of excess payment came to Rs.3,10,864/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. Though in response to the same, the petitioner filed his representation on 03.11.2005, but the same was not taken into consideration. In addition to the same, while determining the liability, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and as such, no reasons have been assigned for determining such amount. Furthermore, due to wrong allotment of agency of Sri D.K. Mandal, if the Corporation has sustained loss, in that case the opposite party no.4 could not have recommended that Sri D.K. Mandal is number one agent in his Division and he should be retained instead of discharging him from agency. 10. On the basis of the record available, continuance of the agency of Sri D.K. Mandal under the petitioner is by virtue of the order passed by the opposite party no.3 and as such, the petitioner has never opted to allow Sri D.K. Mandal to work under him. 10. On the basis of the record available, continuance of the agency of Sri D.K. Mandal under the petitioner is by virtue of the order passed by the opposite party no.3 and as such, the petitioner has never opted to allow Sri D.K. Mandal to work under him. After Sri D.K. Mandal was thrust upon the petitioner to work under him and after working under him he became number one, as per the recommendation made by opposite party no.4, in that case the authority should have given an opportunity to Sri D.K. Mandal, instead of calculating for excess payment for each appraisal period, which has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 26.10.2005. 11. If the liability has been determined, in that case the petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Non10 compliance thereof and without assigning any reasons, if any direction has been given for recovery from the petitioner; the same cannot sustain in the eye of law and more particularly the order impugned does not indicate any reasons for recovery of the same. 12. 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. Therefore, reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order allowing the authority to discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference. 13. “Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum” means as follows: “nothing is permitted which is contrary to reason. It is the life of the law. Law is nothing but experience developed by reason and applied continually to further experience. 13. “Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum” means as follows: “nothing is permitted which is contrary to reason. It is the life of the law. Law is nothing but experience developed by reason and applied continually to further experience. What is inconsistent with and contrary to reason is not permitted in law and reason alone can make the laws obligatory and lasting.” Therefore, recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is pertinent to note that a decision is apt to be better if the reasons for it are set out in writing because the reasons are then more likely to have been properly thought out. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. In Re: Racal Communications Ltd. (1980)2 All ER 634 (HL), it has been held that the giving of reasons facilitates the detection of errors of law by the court. In Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968) 1 All E.R. 694, it has been held that a failure to give reasons may permit the Court to infer that the decision was reached by the reasons of an error in law. 14. 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 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 . 15. In Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. The Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 862 it is observed by the apex Court that the necessity to give sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached in cases where a non-judicial authority exercises judicial functions is obvious. 15. In Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. The Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 862 it is observed by the apex Court that the necessity to give sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached in cases where a non-judicial authority exercises judicial functions is obvious. When judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, the Supreme Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency. The court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds: one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power. 16. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the apex Court held that the reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the Court; or else, the wholesome power of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive orders could with impunity be set at naught by an obdurate determination to suppress the reasons. 17. In view of the meaning of ‘reasons’ and requirement for compliance of the principle of natural justice, as discussed above, and also the law laid down by the apex Court, we are of the considered view that the order of the appellate authority, having been passed without assigning any reasons, suffers from non-application of mind and thereby violates principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be quashed and is hereby is quashed. Further, this Court is of the considered view that direction for recovery of the amount, pursuant to letter dated 26.10.2005 vide Annexire- 6, being made without compliance of principle of natural justice and without assigning reasons, cannot sustain in the eye of law and accordingly the same is also hereby quashed. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order to costs. Petition allowed.