JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. Heard through Video Conferencing 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts are taken from WP. No. 17190/2014. 3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) wherein certain allegations of impropriety/misconduct were made against him. The petitioner filed reply dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) and denied the charges in toto. He also submitted his explanation in the said reply. The respondents, in turn, passed the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 and inflicted a punishment of recovery on the petitioner. The petitioner directly assailed this order in this petition. 4. Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the allegations made against him are factual in nature and the same are denied by him, in view of principles of natural justice ingrained in Rule 16 of M.P.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Others (2001) 9 SCC 180 , the respondents were required to consider the reply and conduct an enquiry, if they were not satisfied with the reply. In the manner, they imposed a punishment of recovery without considering the reply, the impugned order needs to be axed. 5. Prayer is opposed by Shri Parashar on the basis of return filed. However, he did not dispute that no enquiry was conducted in the matters as mandated in Rule 16 of CCA Rules. 6. In the present matters, the punishment of recovery is inflicted on the petitioners. The said act has an adverse impact and entails a civil consequences. Thus, the minimum requirement as per principles of natural justice was to consider the reply of the petitioner before taking decision to impose punishment. A microscopic reading of impugned order dated 28.10.2014 shows that there is no iota of application of mind on the reply filed by the petitioner. The so-called enquiry mentioned in the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 was an enquiry conducted by the department behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, the said enquiry will not serve any useful purpose as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules and principles of natural justice. The so-called enquiry mentioned in the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 was an enquiry conducted by the department behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, the said enquiry will not serve any useful purpose as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules and principles of natural justice. No reasons are assigned in the impugned order as to why the defence taken by the petitioner was not found trustworthy. 7. The Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 8. In the said judgment, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment 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 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. 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. 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 M/S. Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. 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 '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". 9. Apart from this, in O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the Apex Court disapproved such punishment, which are imposed without conducting enquiry when the employee has denied the factual allegations in his reply In view of this legal position, the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 and other impugned orders in the connected matters cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, all the impugned orders are set aside. Resultantly, all the impugned orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners after the stage the petitioners have filed their reply. 10. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. C.C. as per rules.