ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner who was working as First Division Assistant in Raichur Sub-Division was transferred and posted as First Division Assistant in the Social Forestry Division, Raichur. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.11.2019, she was asked to go back to the post from which she was transferred i.e. FDA in Raichur Sub-Division. It is this action of the Government that was brought under challenge before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The Tribunal dismissed the application by the following order: “1. The matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides. Heard the learned counsel on both the sides. 2. perused the entire facts of the case. The applicant formerly working as a First Division Assistant in Raichur Sub-Division. Subsequently, she has been transferred to Social Forestry Division of the Raichur, alone. Now, the Government passed the order as per Annexure-A3 reverting back to both the officials to their original posts, I do not find any injustice caused to the applicant as well as the respondent No. 5. The Government has got every right to pass such an order and therefore, the application is devoid of merits. 3. I accepted the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the Caveator. Hence, I do not find any merits in the application and the application is hereby dismissed.” 4. We have perused the afore-extracted impugned order. We are appalled by the manner in which the Tribunal has adverted itself to the case, the order impugned does not disclose as to what material the Tribunal has perused nor the provisions of law which aided to the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion to reject the application. To state that the order is vitiated by non application of mind would be an understatement. The Tribunal being the Court of first instance is required to address the facts and assign cogent reasons in support of its conclusion. The order impugned is totally bereft of any reasoning. 5. It is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. The Tribunal being the Court of first instance is required to address the facts and assign cogent reasons in support of its conclusion. The order impugned is totally bereft of any reasoning. 5. It is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. and Others vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 431 as under: “10. The order of learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench show clearly non-application of mind. The latter is practically non-reasoned. The basic issue raised by the appellants was the unexplained delay in filing the writ application. Neither the Single Judge considered that aspect before disposal of the writ petition without issuance of the notice to the present appellants. Though specifically urged and argued, the Division Bench has not dealt with it and has not recorded any conclusion on that issue and no reason has been indicated. 11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable. 12. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: (All ER p.1154h) “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. vs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120, it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 6. In our view, the impugned order of the Tribunal falls foul of the afore extracted judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. On a query, Government Advocate and counsel for respondent No. 5 would fairly submit that the order impugned does not reflect application of mind. Their submissions are placed on record. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and disposal on merits, in accordance with law. 8. In the aforementioned terms, writ petition is disposed of.