The judgment emphasized the need for reasoned orders in the disposal of statutory complaints and highlighted the importance of giving reasons in support of decisions, especially in quasi-judicial functions.

( 1 ) RULE D. B. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the disposal of his statutory complaints dated 18th January, 2002 by an order of the Defence Ministry dated 8th August, 2003 and statutory complaints dated 7th december, 2002 which was disposed of by the Ministry of Defence on 23rd August, 2004 The preliminary grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his outstanding ACRs his case has been dealt with perfunctorily and without application of mind. He has complained that the relevant paragraphs by which statutory complaints have been disposed of by two different officers by and large read almost identically. There is merit in the plea of the petitioner. We have been observing that in a large number of cases the statutory complaints are being disposed of by identically worded orders by the Under secretary of the Government of India. Except for change of the year and ACRs, the orders by and large read the same. We are reproducing several orders of identical nature. The relevant portions of various orders passed from time to time by the under Secretary, Ministry of Defence read as follows:-"the statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of his cr profile, relevant records and analysis/ recommendations of AHQ. It is seen that the respective assessments of IO, RO and FTO are just, fair and reflective of the Officers performance and personality during the period under review. The report is also in tune with the over all profile of the officer which specially during the period is full of 4/5/6 point grading. No element of bias and inconsistency are discernible. (16th July, 1999)""the statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of his record CR profile, relevant records and analysis/recommendations of AHQ. It is found that the impugned CR 12/92-06 as it stands after partial redress granted to him, is a balanced and objective, report devoid of any inconsistence/ subjectivity. The remaining CRs in the reckonable period are also well balanced moderated/corroborated. Hence, none of the CRs, including the impugned CR merit interference. (18th July, 2002)""the statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of record profile of the officer and analysis/recommendations of AHQ. It is seen that the entire CR profile of the officer is well corroborated and consistent. All CRs are in order and merit no interference. (16th Sep. 1999)""the statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of his career profile, relevant records and analysis/recommendations of Army Hqrs. It has been observed that the impugned CR 07/99-05/2000 is fair, objective, well corroborated/moderated report and devoid of any bias/subjectivity, and therefore, does not merit any interference by the Govt. (13th July, 2004)""the statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of his career profile, relevant records and analysis/recommendations of Army Hqrs. It has been observed that all the CRs in the reckonable profile of the officer including the impugned Crs. 06/96 11/96 and 12/2000-05/2001 are consistent, well moderated, devoid of any bias/subjectivity and in tune with the overall profile of the officer, except the SRO s box grading in CR 12/2000-05/2001 which is inconsistent. (30th Sep. 2004)""the Statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of his career profile, relevant records and anaysis/recommendations of AHQ/. It is observed that the relief, where due, has already been granted to the officer by coas on his Non-Statutory Complaint dt. 18th April, 1999. The remaining assessment in the impugned CR 06/96-11/96 is fair, objective and consistent with the overall profile of the officer. No bias or subjectivity is discernible in the assessment of any of the reporting officers. Hence, the impugned CR does not merit any int