JUDGMENT (Prayer in WP(MD)No.904 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in TNSTC/KUM/DS 2280/DCC055 /D10-216/2021 dated 01.04.2021 and the impugned order issued by the first respondent in its proceedings in TNSTC/legal KUM/L2/13758/2021, dated 22.12.2021 and quash the same. WP(MD)No.905 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in TNSTC/KUM/DS-1919/DCC 055/D10-216/2021 dated 11.03.2021 and the impugned order issued by the first respondent in its proceedings in TNSTC/legal KUM/L2/16633/2021, dated 22.12.2021 and quash the same.) 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned orders of the appellate authority, in and by which, the first respondent/ appellate authority, has rejected the appeals, which were filed against the order of punishment of stoppage of increment. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Driver in the respondent Corporation. The respondent was issued with charge memos on 09.02.2021 and on 05.03.2021. The petitioner has offered his explanation. However, the second respondent has passed the orders imposing punishment of postponing the annual increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect by orders dated 05.03.2021 and 11.03.2021. Challenging the same the petitioner has filed appeals before the first respondent. However, the first respondent being the appellate authority has passed an order on 21.06.2021, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in a single line without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel further submits that challenging the order passed by the appellate authority in TNSTC/KUM/DS-2280/DCC055/D10-216/2021, dated 21.06.2021, the petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No.13758 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021, remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. However, the first respondent vide the order impugned herein has passed the very same order without considering the directions issued by this Court. However, the first respondent vide the order impugned herein has passed the very same order without considering the directions issued by this Court. The petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.16633 of 2021 for speedy disposal of the appeal filed by him against the order dated 11.03.2021 and this Court by order dated 16.09.2021 directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law. However in that appeal also the first respondent has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore challenging the two orders passed by the first respondent, these writ petitions are filed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that it is admitted that this Court has earlier remitted back the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration to pass a reasoned order. However the authority misunderstood the purpose for which the matter was remitted and passed the order. The first respondent has also filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for the mistake on his part. 5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is admitted that the petitioner is working as a Driver in the respondent corporation. While so, he was issued with two charge memos 09.02.2021 and on 05.03.2021, for the lapses on his part. For the charge memo issued on 09.02.2021 the petitioner has submitted his explanation and for the charge memo issued on 05.03.2021 he has not submitted his explanation. However, the second respondent has passed an order that his explanation was not satisfactory and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect. 7. The petitioner challenging the orders, filed appeals before the first respondent. The first respondent by order dated 21.06.2021 rejected one of the appeals filed in respect of the charge memo dated 05.03.2021, in a single line that there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the second respondent. The petitioner challenging the said order has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13758 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 by setting aside the said order, remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “3. The petitioner challenging the said order has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13758 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 by setting aside the said order, remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “3. On a perusal of the said impugned order passed by the appellate authority, it is seen that the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal has not been considered by the first respondent while rejecting the appeal. The aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority is a cryptic and a non-speaking order. In similar circumstances, this Court has considered this issue in detail and passed an order in W.P.No.8661 of 2013 [T.Sakthivel Vs. Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore], dated 03.02.2020 and held that a cryptic and a non-speaking order shall not be passed by the appellate authority. 4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 had not disputed the said fact and in the event of this Court has decided to dispose of the writ petition, liberty may be granted to the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner-s appeal afresh and pass a reasoned order by the appellate authority. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order following the decision of this Court in W.P.No.8661 of 2013, dated 03.02.2020, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say, the first respondent shall pass a reasoned order by considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.” 8. However the first respondent once again has passed the very same order without assigning any reason for rejecting the appeal without considering the directions of this Court and the purpose, for which the matter was remitted to him for fresh consideration. 9. The another appeal filed respect of the charge memo dated 09.02.2021 was also rejected by the first respondent in the same manner as the previous appeal was rejected in non-speaking manner. 10. 9. The another appeal filed respect of the charge memo dated 09.02.2021 was also rejected by the first respondent in the same manner as the previous appeal was rejected in non-speaking manner. 10. As per the Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cesssat ispa lex” reason is the soul of the law. When the reason of any particular law ceases so does the law itself. 11. In a landmark judgment, in Kranti Associates Pvt.Ltd and Ors. Vs. Masood Ahamed Khan and ors, (2010)9 SCC 496 the Honb'le Apex Court, after referring to several the judgments pronounced in this aspect has held as follows: “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. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. 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. 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. 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”. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs The State Of Chhattisgarh [Writ Petition (Crl) No 49 of 2022, dated 22 April, 2022], has held as follows: “Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. The following extract is useful for our consideration; “[005.066] Adequacy of reasons Sufficiency of reasons, in a particular case, depends on the facts of each case. It is not necessary for the authority to write out a judgement as a court of law does. However, at least, an outline of process of reasoning must be given. It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if relevant reasons have been given for the order, though the authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the reasons which had been argued before the court have not been expressly considered by the authority. However, at least, an outline of process of reasoning must be given. It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if relevant reasons have been given for the order, though the authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the reasons which had been argued before the court have not been expressly considered by the authority. A mere repetition of the statutory language in the order will not make the order a reasoned one.” 13. The first respondent while deciding the appeals arbitrarily dismissed them without considering the relevant factors objectively, despite the directions of this Court. 14. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit tendering unconditional apology for not-complying with the earlier directions of this Court and stating that the earlier orders were misunderstood and hence, it is neither willful nor wanton on his part to pass such orders. Further, the management has decided recall the two impugned orders and proposed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner, if he is desirous of so. 15. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned orders are set aside. The first respondent/ the Managing Director, is directed pass orders afresh on the appeals of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by considering all the grounds raised in the appeals. 16. Further the way in which the issue was dealt with by the first respondent is not proper and not satisfactory. Therefore this Court deems it fit to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand], which shall be paid to the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund [IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9, Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSC Code: IOBA0001172] by the first respondent, who passed the impugned orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. In fine the writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Post for reporting compliance on 08.09.2022.