JUDGMENT

SINGH, J.:— Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed againstthe order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, quashing the order of the Ministry of Commerce dated 6-1-1986 rejecting the respondents representation against the adverse remarks awarded to him.

3. E. G. Nambudiri respondent is a Section Officer in the office of Chief Controller of Import and Exports, Ministry of Commerce. By a memorandum dated 7th May, 1985, the Director communicated adverse remarks awarded to the respondent for the year ending 1984. These remarks were as under:

"1. That you were not associated with the important work of the section such as the open house discussions, monthly analysis of the returns received from regional offices, complaints and Port Officers meetings.

2. That the quality of performance and application of knowledge, delegated authority and conceptual and professioanl skills on the jobs is very poor.

3. That you had a casual attitude to the work assigned. Your devotion to duty was insufficient. That subordinates used to complain that they could not work under you, as you could not give proper guidance.

4. That your job did not involve contact with the public indications and your intellectual honesty and innovative capacity are average.

5. That nothing adverse has come to notice regarding your integrity.

6. That you were given advice/ warning at various levels both orally and in writing but you did not react to these."

The respondent made representation against the adverse remarks but the same was rejected by the order dated 6-1-1986. The respondent, thereafter, made a memorial to the President of India against the adverse remarks, as a result of which the adverse remarks as contained in Item Nos. 1 to 4 as quoted above were expunged, whereas the remaining adverse entries were maintained. The Govt.s decision was communicated by a memorandum dated 14-8-1986. But before the aforesaid decision of the Government partially expunging the adverse remarks could be communicated to the respondent, he filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the Ministry of Commerce dated 6-1-1986 rejecting his representation made against the adverse entries. The respondent challenged the order dated 6-1-1986 rejecting his representation on the ground that it did not contain any reasons. Plea of mala fide was also raised against the Joint Director, Ministry of Commerce, who had awarded the adverse remarks to the respondent. The Tribunal by its order dated 27-7-1987 quashed the Government Order as contained in the communication letter dated 6-1-1986 and also subsequent order dated 148-1986 on the ground that those orders were vitiated in law in the absence of reasons.

4. The Tribunal held that it was a basic principle of natural justice of every quasi-judicial process, that order should contain reasons. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial as well as administrative enquiries, an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far-reaching effect than in a quasi-judicial enquiry, therefore, it was necessary that in rejecting the representation against an adverse entry, reasons must be stated and in the absence of reasons the order would be arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Placing reliance on. a number of decisions of High Courts, the Tribunal held that a bald communication rejecting the representation made against the adverse entries does not meet the requirement of law. The Tribunal further held that in the absence of reasons it would follow that the competent authority rejected the representation without applying its mind to the grounds raised in the representation.

5. Learned counsel for the parties conceded that there are no statutory rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution regulating the award of entries in the character roll of a Central Government employee or providing for filing of representation against the adverse entries, or its disposal.