ORDER 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner against the reconsideration of the adverse ACRs for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 has been turned down without assigning any reason. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Managing Director, MPPKVV Co. Ltd and Ors. passed in W.P. No.3792/2015(s) dated 21.8.2019 and in the matter of Arvind Kumar Gautam v. The State of M.P. and Ors. passed in W.P. No.4555/2015 dated 19.11.2024 has argued that the respondents were duty bound to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order, but from bare perusal of Annexure P/1 except for mentioning of the fact that the representation was considered by the Regional Review Committee, no other reason has been assigned which entails the said order to be non-speaking and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it has been submitted that the present petition be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back for reconsideration. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after due consideration of the representation and the fact that against the petitioner on 2.3.1995 a case under sections 13(6)(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and in consequence thereof he was placed under suspension w.e.f 10.6.1996 and, thereafter, since he was convicted in the said offence, his services were terminated w.e.f. 26.1.1997, therefore, the ACRs recorded for the aforementioned period had adverse entries. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was acquitted for the aforesaid offence on 5.1.2005 by this Court and in view thereof the petitioner was reinstated from the date of acquittal without prejudice to the Board's right to decide the period of suspension followed by termination on duty or not with or without back-wages. In the light of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner was considered and, therefore, the representation was rightly rejected. He submitted that there is no sum and substance in the present petition, thus, the same be dismissed. 5. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner was considered and, therefore, the representation was rightly rejected. He submitted that there is no sum and substance in the present petition, thus, the same be dismissed. 5. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is settled law that the authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear to be a speaking one. 7. It is a settled position of law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order. 8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan (supra) highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. The Hon'ble apex Court in the aforesaid matter in para 47 has laid certain principles with regard to necessity of passing a reasoned/speaking order, which reads as under:- "a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even i n 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. 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, quasijudicial 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 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 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". 9. It is also relevant to quote para 19 of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Arvind Kumar Gautam (supra):- "19. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that even the quasi judicial authorities are required to give reasons while passing orders rejecting claims of their employees. As there are no reasons assigned by the Authorities rejecting the representation for upgradation, the same is unsustainable. Therefore, order dated 10.4.2014 is hereby set aside." 10. In the light of the above discussion and considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble apex Court in Ms. Kranti Associates and Others (supra), this Court deems it fit to set aside the order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Superintending Engineer (PO) and remit the matter back to the Superintending Engineer (PO) to decide the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of finally.