ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the punishment order dated 19.3.2020 whereby a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 10.7.2019. He filed a detailed reply dated 20.7.2019. Thereafter, without holding any enquiry and without assigning any reason, the impugned order of punishment is passed. The main reason of attack on this punishment order is that; (i) the order does not contain any reason whatsoever as to why defense putforth by petitioner is not found trustworthy by the department; (ii) Since petitioner has not admitted the charges, the departmental enquiry should have been conducted. 2. The prayer is opposed by the learned P.L. 3. I find substance in the arguments of Shri Shukla that as per principles of natural justice which are ingrained in the shape of Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, it is obligatory on the part of the department to consider the reply and assign adequate reason while taking decision. The relevant portion of the rule reads as under: "16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10 and rule 11 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; ( d ) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e) consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary. [(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay of stagnation allowance and such withholding or increments of pay or stagnation allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years of to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.] (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the commission, if /any; (vi) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor." 4. The "reasons" are even otherwise held to be "heart beat" of conclusions. In absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 5. The apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion reads as under: 51. 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 af ect 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. 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. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as dif erent 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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 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 `rubberstamp 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 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 v. 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". 6. Since the impugned order does not contain any reasons, it is arbitrary and runs contrary of the principles of natural justice. Resultantly, the order dated 19.3.2020 is set aside. The liberty is reserved to the competent authority to proceed from that stage in accordance with law. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.