V.C. Daga, J.
1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.
2. The petitioner in this case, amongst others, had challenged reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 7700/- to Rs. 7300/- by filing original application No. 2089 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' in short). The Tribunal, while deciding the case of the petitioner by order dated 21st September, 2001, set aside the recovery directed against the petitioner, but turned down the challenge to the reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 7700/- to Rs. 7300/- without giving any reason. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner in this behalf by one sentence order saying, 'While upholding the action of the respondents in refixing the applicants pay keeping in view the instructions governing the same, I direct that the recovery of amount of Rs. 53,325/- which represents the amount paid to him for the higher responsibility shouldered during 1978-81 be set aside.' Reading of this sentence would show that while upholding the action of the respondents in re-fixing the petitioner's basic pay, made a passing reference to the instructions governing the same, but no details of such instructions are to be found in the order. No where in the body of order, the said instructions are referred to or discussed by the Tribunal. Even no reference and/or details and/or particulars thereof are to be found in the impugned order. Reading of the above extracted sentence does not convey as to why the action of refixation of petitioner's basic pay was upheld by the Tribunal.
2. While noticing the absence of reasons, we are reminded of the judgment delivered by this Court in Anusayaben A. Doshi v. Jt. C.I.T. 2002(177) C.T.R. 218 (Bom.) to which one of us (V.C. Daga, J.) is party; wherein this Court has observed as under:---
'It is needless to emphasise that the order or judgment should be self-explanatory. It should not keep the Higher Court guessing for reasons. Reasons provide a live-link between conclusion and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrariness, passion and prejudice. Reason is a manifestation of the mind of the Court or Tribunal. It is a tool for judging the validity of the order. It gives an opportunity to the Higher Court to see whether the impugned order is based on reasons and that the reasons are based on adequate legal and relevant material. Giving reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reasons is, therefore, an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only or the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the authority itself. Therefore, stating of reasons is one of the essentials of justice.'
3. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court came to the conclusion that when the order of the Tribunal is not self-explanatory and does not give proper reasons then there is lapse of administration of justice and if there are no proper reasons given, then the finding recorded by the lower authorities would loose its impact.
4. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to quash and set aside the impugned order to the extent it upholds the action of the respondents in re-fixing petitioner's basic pay from Rs. 7700/- to Rs. 7300/- and remit the case back to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. We direct the Tribunal to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order from this Court. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21-2-2003.
5. In the result, petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs.