ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 26.07.2013 passed in Reference No.22/2008 passed by CGIT-I, Dhanbad whereby reference has been answered in favour of the workman. 3. It appears that respondent-workman was posted as Clerk in Teghra Branch, Begusarai under the petitioner-bank. 4. Respondent has been charged vide charge-sheet dated 26.11.2002. Three charges have been imputed upon him, which are as follows:- 1. Sri R.L.Gupta, Clerk, Teghra branch has been absent from the branch since 13.02.2001. He has not sent any application/information to Teghra branch immediately with regard to the reasons of his absence from duty. 2. We have been informed that Sri Gupta had surrendered before Begusarai court on 15.02.2001 and since then he is lodged in Begusarai Jail. Sri Gupta had not informed the Bank immediately with regard to his detention in Begusarai jail. Thus Sri Gupta thereby acted with gross negligence by not informing the Bank with regard to his detention. 3. A charge-sheet No.43/2001 dated 11.05.2001 has been issued by Phulwari Police station, Begusarai wherein Sri Gupta has been charged that he was involved in torturing his wife. It has also been alleged that Sri Gupta alongwith his relatives burnt his wife to death. 5. On the basis of above charges, departmental proceeding has been conducted and the respondent found guilty and order of punishment has been inflicted upon him by lowering one stage in the scale of pay for one year. 6. Against the said punishment, industrial dispute has been raised which has been referred vide reference order no.22/2008. This reference has been answered in favour of workman by award dated 26.07.2013. Altogether award is in seven paragraphs, but length of award is not material. But, tribunal has been called by the employer to decide preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the proceeding not decided. Further it appears that the charge-sheet as well as enquiry report etc. has not been discussed. 7. As per the petitioner-employer, charge has been proved i.e. absenting since 13.02.2001 without intimation to the bank. Finding has been recorded that intimation has been given for absenteeism. For two days absenteeism, there was no intimation. This finding has been recorded by the tribunal, without discussing any evidence and without declaring that the departmental proceeding is not fair and proper. 8. Finding has been recorded that intimation has been given for absenteeism. For two days absenteeism, there was no intimation. This finding has been recorded by the tribunal, without discussing any evidence and without declaring that the departmental proceeding is not fair and proper. 8. Under Section 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Tribunal is supposed to look into proportionately of the punishment. If on a preliminary issue, finding has been recorded that the departmental proceeding is not fair and proper then he has to initiate a proceeding afresh. If departmental proceeding has been held fair and proper then he has to decide the case on the material available on record. At least material available on record has to be discussed to record any finding. 9. In the present case, without discussing of evidence available on record, finding has been recorded that intimation was there. Thus, impugned award is unreasoned order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 especially para-47, which is quoted hereinbelow: “47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".” 11. In view of the judicial pronouncement and discussion, this Court finds that impugned award is not sustainable being unreasoned. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".” 11. In view of the judicial pronouncement and discussion, this Court finds that impugned award is not sustainable being unreasoned. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the tribunal to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the parties. 12. It is expected that the proceeding will be completed within nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. Both the parties are directed to co-operate to the tribunal. 14. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.