ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 25.9.2024 passed by respondent No.3. 2. It is argued that earlier W.P. No. 24683/2024 (Sushma Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) was filed, wherein petitioner was respondent No. 5. The said Writ Petition was disposed off on 4th of September 2024 with the following observations:- "7. The respondents are directed to take note of the said fact and if indeed the respondent No.5 is facing any allegations of malpractices in running of the hostel then it would be lawful for the respondents to pass appropriate order of giving over charge to any untainted person so that interest of the students studying in the hostel can be secured because ultimately the hostel is run for the benefit for the students and not for the benefit of Warden. The respondents may pass appropriate posting order of any untainted person within a period of 15 days from today." 3. In pursuance to the direction given by this Court, petitioner has been removed and the charge was handed over to the private respondent. The Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter the Authorities have passed the order dated 7.10.2024 (Annexure-P/9) which is subsequently challenged in the Writ Petition by filing an amendment application. The order dated 7.10.2024 reads as under:- ^^dk;kZy; fodkl [k.M vfèkdkjh] y[kukn©u] ftyk&flouh ¼e-ç-½ vkns'k Øekad@930@LFkk-@2024 y[kukn©u fnukad 7-10-2024 lgk;d vk;qä] tutkrh; dk;Z foÒkx flouh d¢ vkns'k Øekad@4424@gkWLVy@2024] fnukad 25-9-2024 }kjk fn, x, funs'kkuqlkj Jherh 'kf'krk elsd¨ys] çkFkfed f'k{kd d¨ vèkhf{kdk vkfn- d- vkJe] eढ+h ,oa vkfn- d- vkJe [k[kfj;k dk iw.kZ çÒkj Jherh vpZuk mÃd¢] çkFkfed f'k{kd }kjk l©aik x;k gSA vr% Jherh vpZuk mÃd¢] çkFkfed f'k{kd d¨ mudh ewy laLFkk 'kkl- çkFkfed 'kkyk dlà gsrq dk;Zeqä fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k rRdky çÒko'khy g¨xkA fodkl [k.M vfèkdkjh y[kukn©u^^ 4. The said order reflects that the charge has been taken from the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 25.9.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department. The said order reflects that the charge has been taken from the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 25.9.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department. The order dated 25.9.2024 (Annexure-P/7) reads under:- ^^dk;kZy; dysDVj ¼tutkrh; dk;Z½ flouh la'k¨fèkr vkns'k Ø- 4424 gkWLVy@2024 flouh] fnukad 25 flrEcj 2024 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj esa çLrqr ;kfpdk çdj.k MCY;wih&24683@2024 e-ç- 'kklu ls fnukad 4-9-2024 d¨ ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fodkl[k.M y[kukn©u d¢ i=@822@LFkk-@2024 fnukad 20-9-2024 rFkk dqekjh 'kf'krk elsd¨ys çkFkfed f'k{kd eढ+h d¢ }kjk çLrqr lgefr i= fnukad 21-9-2024 d¢ vkèkkj ij dqekjh 'kf'krk elZdkys ¼çkFkfed f'k{kd½ çkFkfed 'kkyk eढ+h d¨ vkfnoklh dU;k vkJe eढ+h esa vèkh{kd in ij oSdfYid :i ls inLFk djrs gq, vkfnoklh dU;k vkJe [k[kfj;k fodkl[k.M y[kukn©u dk vfrfjä çÒkj l©aik tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k rRdky çÒko'khy g¨xkA lgk;d vk;qä] tutkrh; dk;Z flouh^^ 5. It is the case of the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure-P/4) levying allegations regarding irregularities committed in the hostel where she was posted as Warden. She was asked to submit her reply/ explanation within three days. The petitioner duly submitted her reply on 4.9.2024 (The same is placed before the Court during the Court proceedings). Thereafter the impugned order has been passed. 6. It is argued that there is no consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner. The show cause notice is levying allegations against the petitioner, therefore the same is punitive in nature. The Authorities are duty bound to consider the reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner. Nothing is reflected from document (Annexure-P/9) dated 7.10.2024. As there is no explanation given in document Annexure-P/9, the same is unsustainable. He has played for quashment of the same by placing reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 . 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 & 6 has not filed any reply to the petition. The State counsel has preferred a reply to the petition and made an attempt to justify the issuance of orders impugned. It is argued that it is only a charge which has been withdrawn from the petitioner and the petitioner is having no right to hold the current charge. The State counsel has preferred a reply to the petition and made an attempt to justify the issuance of orders impugned. It is argued that it is only a charge which has been withdrawn from the petitioner and the petitioner is having no right to hold the current charge. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 . 8. The fact remains that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner levying certain allegations against her regarding her working and the same was duly replied by her. The Authorities were duty bound to consider the reply or explanation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter should have passed the order. 9. It is the trite law that the person holding current charge has no legal right to hold the post in question. If some allegations are leveled against the petitioner for which show cause notice was issued, then the Authorities were duty bound to consider the reply or the explanation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter should have proceeded in the matter. In the present case, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not even considered as the same is not reflected in order dated 7.10.2024 or in order dated 25.9.2024. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under:- "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. (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. (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 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. (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. The reasons are the heartbeats of the order. Even the Quasi Judicial Authorities are required to assign reasons while passing the order. No reasons are assigned in the present case while passing the order impugned. 12. Under these circumstances, as the order dated 25.9.2024 (AnnexureP/7) is a non-reasoned order passed by the Authorities, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 25.9.2024 and subsequent relieving order dated 7.10.2024 are hereby quashed. 13. The petition stands allowed. However, liberty is extended to the Authorities to pass a fresh order if need so arises. No order as to costs.