Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 417 of 1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.1981 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 1835 of 1981. A.K. Ganguli	 A. Sharan for the Appellant. Kapil Sibal	 Additional Solicitor General	 Raju Rama chandran	 Rajiv Dhawan	 C.V. Subba Rao and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. T. Prasad for the Secretary	 Ministry of Defence. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL	 J. This appeal	 by special leave	 is directed against the order dated August 12	 1981	 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had challenged the validity of the finding and the sentence recorded by the General Court Martial on November 29	 1978	 the order dated May 11	 1979	 passed by the Chief of Army Staff confirming the findings and the sentence recorded by the General Court Martial and the order dated May 6	 1980	 passed by the Central Government dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 164(2) of the (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '). 48 The appellant held a permanent commission	 as an offi cer	 in the regular army and was holding the substantive rank of Captain. He was officiating as a Major. On December 27	 1974	 the appellant took over as the Officer Commanding of 38 Coy. ASC (Sup) Type 'A ' attached to the Military Hospital	 Jhansi. In August 1975	 the appellant had gone to attend a training course and he returned in the first week of November 1975. In his absence Captain G.C. Chhabra was the officer commanding the unit of the appellant. During this period Captain Chhabra submitted a Contingent Bill dated September 25	 1975 for Rs.16	280 for winter liveries of the depot civilian chowkidars and sweepers. The said Contingent Bill was returned by the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA) Meerut with certain objections. Thereupon the appellant submitted a fresh Contingent Bill dated December 25	 1975 for a sum of Rs.7	029.57. In view of the difference in the amounts mentioned in the two Contingent Bills	 the CDA reported the matter to the headquarters for investiga tion and a Court of Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses. The said report of the Court of Enquiry was considered by the General Officer Commanding	 M.P.	 Bihar and Orissa Area	 who	 on January 7	 1977 recommended that 'severe displeasure ' (to be recorded) of the General Officer Com manding in Chief of the Central Command be awarded to the appellant. The General Officer Commanding in Chief. Central Command did not agree with the said opinion and by order dated August 26	 1977	 directed that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant for the lapses. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the General Officer Commanding in Chief	 Central Command	 a charge sheet dated July 20. 1978	 containing three charges was served on the appellant and it was directed that he be tried by Gener al Court Martial. The first charge was in respect of the offence under Section 52(f) of the Act	 i.e. doing a thing with intent to defraud. the second charge was alternative to the first charge and was in respect of offence under Section 63 of the Act	 i.e. committing an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline and the third charge was also in respect of offence under Section 63 of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the charges. The General Court Martial. on November 29	 1978	 found the appellant not guilty of the second charge but found him guilty of the first and the third charge and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. The appellant submit 49 ted a petition dated December 18	 1978	 to the Chief of Army Staff wherein he prayed that the findings and the sentence of the General Court Martial be not confirmed. The findings and sentence of the General Court Martial were confirmed by the Chief of the Army Staff by his order dated May 11	 1979. The appellant	 thereafter	 submitted a post confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Act. The said petition of the appellant was rejected by the Central Government by order dated May 6	 1980. The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. The said writ petition was dismissed	 in limine	 by the High Court by order dated August 12	 1981. The appellant approached this Court for grant of special leave to appeal against the said order of the Delhi High Court. By order dated January 24	 1984	 special leave to appeal was granted by this Court. By the said order it was directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing before the Constitution Bench. The said order does not indicate the reason why the appeal was directed to be heard by the Constitution Bench. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that this direction has been given by this Court for the reason that the appeal involves the question as to whether it was incumbent for the Chief of the Army Staff	 while confirming the findings and the sentence of the General Court Martial	 and for the Central Govern ment	 while rejecting the post confirmation petition of the appellant	 to record their reasons for the orders passed by them. We propose to deal with this question first. It may be mentioned that this question has been consid ered by this Court in Som Datt Datta vs Union of India and Others	 ; In that case it was contended before this Court that the order of the Chief of Army Staff confirming the proceedings of the Court Martial under Sec tion 164 of the Act was illegal since no reason had been given in support of the order by the Chief of the Army Staff and that the Central Government had also not given any reason while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner in that case under Section 165 of the Act and that the order of the Central Government was also illegal. This contention was negatived. After referring to the provisions contained in Sections 164	 165 and 162 of the Act this Court pointed that while Section 162 of the Act expressly provides that the Chief of the Army Staff may "for reasons based on the merits of the case" set aside the proceedings or reduce the sentence to any other sentence which the Court might have passed	 there is no express obligation imposed by Sections 164 and 165 of the Act on the confirming authority or upon the Central Government to give reasons in support of its decision to confirm the proceedings of the Court Martial. This Court observed that no other section of the Act or any of the rules made 50 therein had been brought to its notice from which necessary implication can be drawn that such a duty is cast upon the Central Government or upon the confirming authority. This Court did not accept the contention that apart from any requirement imposed by the statute or statutory rule either expressly or by necessary implication	 there is a general principle or a rule of natural justice that a statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons m support of its decision. Shri A.K. Ganguli has urged that the decision of this Court in Som Datt Datta 's case (supra) to the extent it holds that there is no general principle or rule of natural justice that a statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons in support of its decision needs reconsid eration inasmuch as it is not in consonance with the other decisions of this Court. In support of this submission Shri Ganguli has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Bhagat Raja vs The Union of India and Others	 ; ; Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others	 ; ; Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs Woolcombers Workers Union and Another	 and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited vs Union of India and Another	 The learned Additional Solicitor General has refuted the said submission of Shri Ganguli and has submitted that there is no requirement in law that reasons be given by the con firming authority while confirming the finding or sentence of the Court Martial or by the Central Government while dealing with the post confirmation petition submitted under Section 164 of the Act and that the decision of this Court in Som Datt Datta 's case (supra) in this regard does not call for reconsideration. The question under consideration can be divided into two parts: (i) Is there any general principle of law which requires an administrative authority to record the reasons for its decision; and (ii) If so	 does the said principle apply to an order con firming the findings and sentence of a Court Martial and post confirmation proceedings under the Act? On the first part of the question there is divergence of opinion in the common law countries. The legal position in the United States is different from that in other common law countries. 51 In the United States the courts have insisted upon recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority on the premise that the authority should give clear indication that it has exercised the discretion with which it has been empowered because "administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise" Phelps Dodge Corporation vs National Labour Relations Board	 [1940] 85 Law Edn. 1271 at P. 1284. The said requirement of record ing of reasons has also been justified on the basis that such a decision is subject to judicial review and "the Courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review" and that "the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administra tive agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained." Securities and Exchange Commission vs Chenery Corporation	 ; at P. 636. In John T. Dunlop vs Waiter Bachowski	 ; 377) it has been observed that a statement of reasons serves purposes other than judicial review inasmuch as the reasons promotes thought by the authority and compels it to cover the rele vant points and eschew irrelevancies and assures careful administrative consideration. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act	 1946 which prescribed the basic procedural principles which are to govern formal administrative proce dures contained an express provision (Section g(b) ) to the effect that all decisions shall indicate a statement of findings and conclusions as well as reasons or basis the	 for upon all the material issues of fact	 law or discretion presented on the record. The said provision is now contained in Section 557(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code (1982 edition). Similar provision is contained in the state stat utes. In England the position at Common law is that there is no requirement that reasons should be given for its decision by the administrative authority (See: Regina vs Gaming Board for Great Britain Ex Party Benaim and Khaida	 [1970] 2 Q.B. 417 at p. 431 and McInnes vs Onslow Fane and Another	 at p. 1531). There are	 however	 observa tions in some judgments wherein the importance of reasons has been emphasised. In his dissenting judgment in Breen vs Amalgamated Engineering Union and Others	 Lord Denning M.R.	 has observed that: "the giving of reasons is one of the fundamental of good administration." (P. 191) In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. vs Crabtree	 Sir John Donaldson	 as President of the National Industrial Relations Court	 has observed that: 52 "failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. " In Regina vs Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Khan (Mahmud)	 Lord Lane	 CJ.	 while expressing his reservation on the proposition that any failure to give reasons means a denial of justice	 has observed: "A party appearing before a tribunal is entitled to know either expressly stated by the tribunal or inferentially stated	 what it is to which the tribunal is addressing its mind." (P. 794) The Committee on Ministers ' Powers (Donoughmore Commit tee) in its report submitted in 1932	 recommended that "any party affected by a decision should be informed of the reasons on which the decision is based" and that "such a decision should be in the form of a reasoned document avail able to the parties affected." (P. 100) The Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries (Franks Committee) in its report submitted in 1957	 recommended that "decisions of tribunals should be reasoned and as full as possible." The said Committee has observed: "Almost all witnesses have advocated the giving of reasoned decisions by tribunals. We are convinced that if tribunal proceedings are to be fair to the citizen reasons should be given to the fullest practicable extent. A decision is apt to be better if the reasons for it have to be set out in writing because the reasons are then more likely to have been properly thought out. Further	 a reasoned decision is essential in order that	 where there is a right of appeal	 the applicant can assess whether he has good grounds of appeal and know the case he will have to meet if he decides to appeal." (Para 98) The recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee and the Franks Committee led to the enactment of the Tribunals and Enquiries Act	 1958 in United Kingdom. Section 12 of that Act prescribed that it shall be the duty of the Tribunal or Minister to furnish a statement	 either written or oral	 of the reasons for the decision if requested	 on or before the giving of notification of the decision to support the deci sion. The said Act has been replaced by the Tribunals and Enquiries Act	 1971 which contains a similar provision in Section 12. This requirement is. however	 confined. in its applications to tribunals and statu 53 tory authorities specified in Schedule I to the said enact ment. In respect of the tribunals and authorities which are not covered by the aforesaid enactment	 the position	 as prevails at common law	 applies. The Committee of JUSTICE in its Report	 Administration Under Law	 submitted in 1971	 has expressed the view: "No single factor has inhibited the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of any gener al obligation upon public authorities to give reasons for their decisions. " The law in Canada appears to be the same as in England. In Pure Spring Co. Ltd. vs Minister of National Revenue	 at P. 539 it was held that when a Minister makes a determination in his discretion he is not required by law to give any reasons for such a determination. In some recent decisions	 however	 the Courts have recognised that in certain situations there would be an implied duty to state the reasons or grounds for a decision (See: Re R D.R. Construction Ltd. And Rent Review Commission	 and Re Yarmouth Housing Ltd. And Rent Review Commission	 In the Province of Ontario the Statutory Powers Procedure Act	 1971 was enacted which provided that "a tribunal shall give its final deci sion	 if any	 in any proceedings in writing and shall give reasons in writing therefore if requested by a party." (Section 17). The said Act has now been replaced by the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act	 1980	 which contains a similar provision. The position at common law is no different in Australia. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Osmond vs Public service Board of New South Wales	 had held that the common law requires those entrusted by Statute with the discretionary power to make decisions which will affect other persons to act fairly in the performance of their statutory functions and normally this will require an obligation to state the reasons for their decisions. The said decision was overruled by the High Court of Australia in Public Service Board of New South Wales vs Osmond	 and it has been held that there is no general rule of the common law	 or principle of natural justice	 that requires reasons to be given for administrative decisions	 even decisions which have been made in the exercise of a statutory discretion and which may adversely affect the interests or defeat the legitimate or reasonable expectations	 of other persons. Gibbs CJ.	 in his leading judgment	 has expressed the view that "the 'rules of natural justice are 54 designed to ensure fairness in the making of a decision and it is difficult to see how the fairness of an administrative decision can be affected by what is done after the decision has been made. " The learned Chief Justice has. however. observed that "even assuming that in special circumstances natural justice may require reasons to be given	 the present case is not such a case." (P. 568). Deane J.	 gave a concur ring judgment	 wherein after stating that "the exercise of a decision making power in a way which adversely affects others is less likely to be. or appear to be	 arbitrary if the decision maker formulates and provides reasons for his decision"	 the learned Judge has proceeded to hold that "the stage has not been reached in this country where it is a general prima facie requirement of the common law rules of natural justice or procedural fair play that the administra tive decision maker. having extended to persons who might be adversely affected by a decision an adequate opportunity of being heard. is bound to furnish reasons for the exercise of a statutory decision making power." (P. 572). The learned Judge has further observed that the common law rules of natural justice or procedural fair play are neither stand ardized nor immutable and that their content may vary with changes in contemporary practice and standards. In view of the statutory developments that have taken place in other countries to which reference was made by the Court of Ap peal	 Deane	 J. has observed that the said developments "are conducive to an environment within which the courts should be less reluctant than they would have been in times past to discern in statutory provisions a legislative intent that the particular decision maker should be under a duty to give reasons." (P. 573). This position at common law has been altered by the Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Section 13 of the said Act enables a person who is entitled to apply for review the decision before the Federal Court to request the decision maker to furnish him with a statement in writing setting out the findings on material questions of fact	 referring to the evidence or other mate rial on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision and on such a request being made the decision maker has to prepare the statement and furnish it to the persons who made the request as soon as practica ble and in any event within 28 days. The provisions of this Act are not applicable to the classes of decisions mentioned in Schedule I to the Act. A similar duty to give reasons has also been imposed by Sections 28 and 37 of the commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. In India the matter was considered by the Law Commission in 55 the 14th Report relating to reform in Judicial Administra tion. The Law Commission recommended: "In the case of administrative decisions provision should be made that they should be accompanied by reasons. The reasons will make it possible to test the validity of these deci sions by the machinery of appropriate writs." (Vol. II P. 694). No laws has	 however	 been enacted in pursuance of these recommendations	 imposing a general duty to record the reasons for its decision by an administrative authority though the requirement to give reasons is found in some statutes. The question as to whether an administrative authority should record the reasons for its decision has come up for consideration before this Court in a number of cases. In M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Others	 ; 	 a Constitution Bench of this Court. while dealing with an order passed by the Central Government in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 111(3) of the in the matter of refusal by a company to register the transfer of shares	 has held that there was no proper trial of the appeals before the Central Government since no reasons had been given in support of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary who heard the appeals. In that case it has been observed: "If the Central Government acts as a tribunal exercising judicial powers and the exercise of that power is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution we fail to see how the power of this Court can be effectively exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of its order." (P. 357) In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs Union of India and Others	 ; the order passed by the Central Government dismissing the revision petition under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Roles	 1960	 was challenged before this Court on the ground that it did not contain reasons. Bachawat	 J.	 speaking for himself and Mudholkar	 J.	 re jected this contention on the view that the reason for rejecting the revision application appeared on the face of the order because the Central Government had agreed with the reasons given by 56 the State Government in its order. The learned Judges did not agree with the submission that omission to give reasons for the decision is of itself a sufficient ground for quash ing it and held that for the purpose of an appeal under Article 136 orders of courts and tribunals stand on the same footing. The learned Judges pointed out that an order of court dismissing a revision application often gives no reasons but this is not a sufficient ground for quashing it and likewise an order of an administrative tribunal reject ing a revision application cannot be pronounced to be in valid on the sole ground that it does not give reasons for the rejection. The decision in Hari Nagar Sugar Mills case (supra) was distinguished on the ground that in that case the Central Government had reversed the decision appealed against without giving any reasons and the record did not disclose any apparent ground for the reversal. According to the learned Judges there is a vital difference between an order of reversal and an order of affirmance. Subba Rao	 J.	 as he then was	 did to concur with this view and found that the order of the Central Government was vitiated as it did not disclose any reasons for rejecting the revision applica tion. The learned Judge has observed: "In the context of a welfare State	 administrative tribunals have come to stay. Indeed	 they are the necessary concomi tants of a Welfare State. But arbitrariness in their func tioning destroys the concept of a welfare State itself. Self discipline and supervision exclude or at any rate minimize arbitrariness. The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds	 A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal." (P. 472). "If tribunals can make orders without giving reasons	 the said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officer may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power. But	 if reasons for an order are given	 it will be an effective restraint on such abuse	 as the order	 if its discloses extraneous or irrelevant considerations	 will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard." (P. 472). 57 "There is an essential distinction between a court and an administrative tribunal. A Judge is trained to look at things objectively	 uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency; but an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. The habit of mind of an executive officer so formed cannot be expected to change from function to function or from act to act. So it is essential that some restrictions shall be imposed on tribunals in the matter of passing orders affect ing the rights of parties; and the least they should do is to give reasons for their orders. Even in the case of appel late courts invariably reasons are given	 except when they dismiss an appeal or revision in limine and that is because the appellate or revisional court agrees with the reasoned judgment of the subordinate court or there are no legally permissible grounds to interfere with it. But the same reasoning cannot apply to an appellate tribunal	 for as often as not the order of the first tribunal is laconic and does not give any reasons." (P. 472 73). With reference to an order of affirmance the learned Judge observed that where the original tribunal gives rea sons	 the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision	 as the case may be	 agreeing with those reasons and that what is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by refer ence to those given by the original tribunal. This matter was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Raja case (supra) where also the order under challenge had been passed by the Central Government in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 30 of the read with rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules	 1960. Dealing with the question as to whether it was incum bent on the Central Government to give any reasons for its decision on review this Court has observed: "The decisions of tribunals in India are subject to the supervisory powers of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and of appellate powers of this Court under article 136. It goes without saying that both the High Court and this Court are placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given and the revision is dismissed curtly by the use of the single word "rejected"	 or "dismissed". In 58 such a case	 this Court can probably only exercise its appeallate jurisdiction satisfactorily by examining the entire records of the case and after giving a hearing come to its conclusion on the merits of the appeal. This will certainly be a very unsatisfactory method of dealing with the appeal." (P. 309). This Court has referred to the decision in Madhya pra desh Industries case (supra) and the observations of Subba Rao	 J.	 referred to above	 in that decision have been quoted with approval. After taking note of the observations of Bachawat	 J.	 in that case	 the learned Judges have held: "After all a tribunal which exercises judicial or quasijudi cial powers can certainly indicate its mind as to why it acts in a particular way and when important rights of par ties of far reaching consequences to them are adjudicated upon in a summary fashion	 without giving a personal hearing when proposals and counter proposals are made and examined	 the least that can be expected is that the tribunals shall tell the party why the decision is going against him in all cases where the law gives a further right of appeal." (P.315). Reference has already been made to Som Datt Datta 's case (supra) wherein a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the confirming authority	 while confirming the findings and sentence of a Court Martial	 and the Central Government	 while dealing with an appeal under Section 165 of the Act	 are not required to record the reasons for their decision and it has been observed that apart from any requirement imposed by the statute or statutory rule either expressly or by necessary implication	 it could not be said that there is any general principle or any rule of natural justice that a statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons in support of its decision. In that case the Court was primarily concerned with the interpretation of the provisions of Act and the Army Rules	 1954. There is no reference to the earlier decisions in Harinagar Sugar Mills case (supra) and Bhagat Raja case (supra) wherein the duty to record reasons was imposed in view of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 136 and 227 of the Consti tution of India respectively. In Travancore Rayon Ltd. vs Union of India	 59 "The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds; one	 that the party aggrieved in a proceedings before the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other	 that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deter rent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power." (P. 46) In Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others (supra) the District Magistrate had cancelled the licence granted under the ' U.P Sugar Dealers ' Licensing Order	 1962 without giving any reason and the State Govern ment had dismissed the appeal against the said order of the District Magistrate without recording the reasons. This Court has held: "The practice of the executive authority dismissing statuto ry appeal against orders which prima facie seriously preju dice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving rea sons is a negation of the rule of law." (P. 204) "Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi judicial authority ensures that the deci sion is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice	 whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal	 the necessity to record reasons is greater	 for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may deter mine whether the facts were properly ascertained	 the rele vant law was correctly applied and the decision was just." (P. 205) In Woolcombers of India Ltd. case (supra) this Court was dealing with an award of an Industrial Tribunal. It was found that the award stated only the conclusions and it did not give the supporting reasons. This Court has observed: "The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First	 it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrari 60 ness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for rea sons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second	 it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclu sions	 on the other hand	 will have also the appearance of justice. Third	 it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decision of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons	 will be of little assistance to the Court." (P. 507) In Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case (supra) this Court was dealing with an appeal against the order of the Central Government on a revision applica tion under the . This Court has laid down: "It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasijudicial order must be supported by reasons." (P 495) "If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals	 as indeed	 in some kinds of cases	 with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced	 it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative au thorities and tribunals	 exercising quasi judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibili ty with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudica tory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is	 like the principle of audi alteram partera	 a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi judicial process and this rule must be observed in its 61 proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." (496) Tarachand Khatri vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Others	 [1977] 2 SCR 198 was a case where an inquiry was conducted into charges of misconduct and the disciplinary authority	 agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Offi cer	 had imposed the penalty of dismissal. The said order of dismissal was challenged on the ground that the disciplinary authority had not given its reasons for passing the order. The said contention was negatived by this Court and distinc tion was drawn between an order of affirmance and an order of reversal. It was observed: " . . while it may be necessary for a disciplinary or administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions to state the reasons in support of its order if it differs from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer in view of the scheme of a particular enactment or the rules made thereunder	 it would be laying down the proposition too broadly to say that even an ordi nary concurrence must be supported by reasons." (P. 208) In Raipur Development Authority and Others vs Mls. Chokhamal Contractors and Others	 [1989] 2 S.C.C. 721 a Constitution Bench of this Court was considering the ques tion whether it is obligatory for an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act	 194(1 to give reasons for the award. It was argued that the requirement of giving reasons for the deci sion is a part of the rules of natural justice which are also applicable to the award of an arbitrator and reliance was placed on the decisions in Bhagat Raja case (Supra) and Siemens Engineering Co. case (Supra). The said contention was rejected by this Court. After referring to the decisions in Bhagat Raja case (Supra); Som Datt Datta case (Supra) and Siemens Engineering Co. case (Supra) this Court has ob served: "It is no doubt true that in the decisions pertaining to Administrative Law	 this court in some cases has observed that the giving of reasons in an administrative decision is a rule of natural justice by an extension of the prevailing rules. It would be in the interest of the world of commerce that the said rule is confined to the area of Administrative Law . . But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that what applies generally to settlement of disputes by 62 authorities governed by public law need not be extended to all cases arising under private law such as those arising under the law of arbitration which is intended for settle ment of private disputes." (P. 751 52) The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American Courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision	 is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons	 if recorded	 would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consid eration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decisionmaking. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by con siderations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. Reasons	 when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi judicial func tions	 would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its juris diction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations	 referred to above	 which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision	 are of no less significance. These considerations show that the re cording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose	 namely	 it excludes chances of arbitrari ness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to deci sions which are subject to appeal	 revision or judicial review. In our opinion	 therefore	 the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an admin istrative authority exercising quasijudicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal	 revision or judicial review. It may	 however	 be added 63 that it is not required that the reasons should be as elabo rate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority	 if it affirms such an order	 need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional author ity agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. Having considered the rationale for the requirement to record the reasons for the decision of an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions we may now examine the legal basis for imposing this obligation. While considering this aspect the Donough more Committee observed that it may well be argued that there is a third principle of natural justice	 namely	 that a party is entitled to know the reason for the decision	 be it judicial or quasi judi cial. The committee expressed the opinion that "there are some cases where the refusal to give grounds for a decision may be plainly unfair; and this may be so	 even when the decision is final and no further proceedings are open to the disappointed party by way of appeal or otherwise" and that "where further proceedings are open to a disappointed party	 it is contrary to natural justice that the silence of the Minister or the Ministerial Tribunal should deprive them of the opportunity." (P 80) Prof. H.W.R. Wade has also ex pressed the view that "natural justice may provide the best rubric for it	 since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man 's sense of justice." (See Wade	 Administra tive Law	 6th Edn. P. 548). In Siemens Engineering Co. case (Supra) this Court has taken the same view when it observed that "the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is	 like the principles of audi alteram parlem	 a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi judicial process." This decision proceeds on the basis that the two well known principles of natural justice	 namely (i) that no man should be a Judge in his own cause and (ii) that no person should be judged without a hearing	 are not exhaustive and that in addition to these two princi ples there may be rules which seek to ensure fairness in the process of decision making and can be regarded as part of the principles of natural justice. This view is in conso nance with the law laid down by this Court in A.K. Kraipak and Others vs Union of India and Others	 	 wherein it has been held: 64 "The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (i) no one shall be a Judge in his own cause (nemo dabet esse judex propria causa) and (ii) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi judicial enquiries must be held in good faith	 without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice." (P. 468 69) A similar trend is discernible m the decisions of Eng lish Courts wherein it has been held that natural justice demands that the decision should be based on some evidence of probative value. (See: R. vs Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex P. Moore	 ; Mahon vs Air New Zealand Ltd.	 The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fairplay in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about re cording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. Keep ing in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice	 we are of the opinion	 that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by adminis trative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an adminis trative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi judicial functions the legislature	 while conferring the said power	 may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provi sion to that affect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act	 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Deci sions (Judicial Review) Act	 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the sub ject matter	 the scheme and the provisions of the 65 enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweight the salutary purpose served by the require ment to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot	 therefore	 be insisted upon in such a case. For the reasons aforesaid	 it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication	 an administra tive authority exercising judicial or quasi judicial func tions is required to record the reasons for its decision. We may now come to the second part of the question	 namely	 whether the confirming authority is required to record its reasons for confirming the finding and sentence of the court martial and the Central Government or the competent authority entitled to deal with the post confirma tion petition is required to record its reasons for the order passed by it on such petition. For that purpose it will be necessary to determine whether the Act or the Army Rules	 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules ') ex pressly or by necessary implication dispense with the re quirement of recording reasons. We propose to consider this aspect in a broader perspective to include the findings and sentence of the court martial and examine whether reasons are required to be recorded at the stage of (i) recording of findings and sentence by the court martial; (ii) confirma tion of the findings and sentence of the court martial; and (iii) consideration of post confirmation petition. Before referring to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules it may be mentioned that the Constitution contains certain special provisions in regard to members of the Armed Forces. Article 33 empowers Parliament to make law determining the extent to which any of the rights conferred by Part Ill shall	 in their application to the members of the Armed Forces be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline amongst them. By clause (2) of Article 136 the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution has been excluded in relation to any judg ment	 determination	 sentence or order passed or made by any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. Similarly clause (4) of Article 227 denies to the High Courts the power of superintendence over any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relat ing to the Armed Forces. This Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 have	 however	 the power of judicial review in respect of 66 proceedings of courts martial and the proceedings subsequent thereto and can grant appropriate relief if the said pro ceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Reference may now be made to the provisions of the Act and the Rules which have a bearing on the requirement to record reasons for the findings and sentence of the court martial. Section 108 of the Act makes provision for four kinds of courts martial	 namely	 (a) general courts martial; (b) district courts martial; (c) summary general courtsmar tial and (d) summary courts martial. The procedure of court martial is prescribed in Chapter XI (Sections 128 to 152) of the Act. Section 129 prescribes that every general court martial shall	 and every district or summary general court martial	 may be attended by a judge advocate	 who shall be either an officer belonging to the department of the Judge Advocate General	 or if no such officer is available	 an officer approved of by the Judge Advocate General or any of his deputies. In sub section (1) of Section 131 it is pro vided that subject to the provisions of sub sections (2) and (3) every decision of a courtmartial shall be passed by an absolute majority of votes	 and where there is an equality of votes on either the finding or the sentence	 the decision shall be in favour of the accused. In sub section (2) it is laid down that no sentence of death shall be passed by a general courtmartial without the concurrence of at least two thirds of the members of the court and sub section (3) provides that no sentence of death shall be passed by a summary general court martial without the concurrence of all the members. With regard to the procedure at trial before the General and District courts martial further provisions are made in Rules 37 to 105 of the Rules. In Rule 60 it is provided that the judge advocate (if any) shall sum up in open court the evidence and advise the court upon the law relating to the case and that after the summing up of the judge advocate no other address shall be allowed. Rule 61 prescribes that the Court shall deliberate on its findings in closed court in the presence of the judge advocate and the opinion of each member of the court as to the finding shall be given by word of mouth on each charge separately. Rule 62 prescribes the form	 record and announcement of finding and in sub rule (1) it is provided that the finding on every charge upon which the accused is arraigned shall be recorded and	 except as provided in these rules	 shall be recorded simply as a finding of "Guilty" or of "Not guilty". Sub rule (10) of Rule 62 lays down that the finding on charge shall be announced forthwith in open court as subject to confirmation. Rule 64 lays down 67 that in cases where the finding on any charge is guilty	 the court	 before deliberating on its sentence	 shall	 whenever possible take evidence in the matters specified in sub rule (1) and thereafter the accused has a right to address the court thereon and in mitigation of punishment. Rule 65 makes provision for sentence and provides that the court shall award a single sentence in respect of all the offences of which the accused is found guilty	 and such sentence shall be deemed to be awarded in respect of the offence in each charge and in respect of which it can be legally given	 and not to be awarded in respect of any offence in a charge in respect of which it cannot be legally given. Rule 66 makes provisions for recommendation to mercy and sub rule (1) prescribes that if the court makes a recommendation to mercy	 it shall give its reasons for its recommendation. Sub rule (1) of Rule 67 lays down that the sentence together with any recommendation to mercy and the reasons for any such recommendation will be announced forthwith in open court. The powers and duties of judge advocate are pre scribed in Rule 105 which	 among other things	 lays down that at the conclusion of the case he shall sum up the evidence and give his opinion upon the legal bearing of the case before the court proceeds to deliberate upon its find ing and the court	 in following the opinion of the judge advocate on a legal point may record that it has decided in consequences of that opinion. The said rule also prescribes that the judge advocate has	 equally with the presiding officer	 the duty of taking care that the accused does not suffer any disadvantage in consequences of his position as such	 or of his ignorance or incapacity to examine or cross examine witnesses or otherwise	 and may	 for that purpose	 with the permission of the court	 call witnesses and put questions to witnesses	 which appear to him neces sary or desirable to elicit the truth. It is further laid down that in fulfilling his duties	 the judgeadvocate must be careful to maintain an entirely impartial position. From the provisions referred to above it is evident that the judge advocate plays an important role during the courts of trial at a general court martial and he is enjoined to maintain an impartial position. The court martial records its findings after the judge advocate has summed up the evidence and has given his opinion upon the legal bearing of the case. The members of the court have to express their opinion as to the finding by word of mouth on each charge separately and the finding on each charge is to be recorded simply as a finding of "guilty" or of "not guilty". It is also required that the sentence should be announced forth with in open court. Moreover Rule 66(1) requires reasons to be recorded for its recommendation in cases where the court makes a recommendation to mercy. There is no such require 68 ment in other provisions relating to recording of findings and sentence. Rule 66(1) proceeds on the basis that there is no such requirement because if such a requirement was there it would not have been necessary to have a specific provi sion for recording of reasons for the recommendation to mercy. The said provisions thus negative a requirement to give reasons for its finding and sentence by the court martial and reasons are required to be recorded only in cases where the courtmartial makes a recommendation to mercy. In our opinion	 therefore	 at the stage of recording of findings and sentence the court martial is not required to record its reasons and at that stage reasons are only required for the recommendation to mercy if the court mar tial makes such a recommendation. As regards confirmation of the findings and sentence of the court martial it may be mentioned that Section 153 of the Act lays down that no finding or sentence of a General	 District or summary General	 Court Martial shall be valid except so far as it may be confirmed as provided by the Act. Section 158 lays down that the confirming authority may while confirming the sentence of a court martial mitigate or remit the punishment thereby awarded	 or commute that pun ishment to any punishment lower in the scale laid down in Section 71. Section 160 empowers the confirming authority to revise the finding or sentence of the court martial and in sub section (1) of Section 160 it is provided that on such revision	 the court	 if so directed by the confirming au thority	 may take additional evidence. The confirmation of the finding and sentence is not required in respect of summary court martial and in Section 162 it is provided that the proceedings of every summary court martial shall Without delay be forwarded to the officer commanding the division or brigade within which the trial was held or to the prescribed officer; and such officer or the Chief of the Army Staff or any officer empowered in this behalf may	 for reasons based on the merits of the case	 but not any merely technical grounds	 set aside the proceedings or reduce the sentence to any other sentence which the court might have passed. In Rule 69 it is provided that the proceedings of a general court martial shall be submitted by the judge advocate at the trial for review to the deputy or assistant judge advocate general of the command who shall then forward it to the confirming officer and in case of district court martial it is provided that the proceedings should be sent by the presiding officer	 who must	 in all cases. where the sentence is dismissal or above	 seek advice of the deputy or assistant judge advocate general of the command before confirmation. Rule 70 lays down that upon receiving the proceedings of a general or district Court Martial	 the confirming authority may 69 confirm or refuse confirmation or reserve confirmation for superior authority	 and the confirmation	 non confirmation	 or reservation shall be entered in and form part of the proceedings. Rule 71 lays down that the charge	 finding and sentence	 and any recommendation to mercy shall	 together with the confirmation or non confirmation of the proceed ings	 be promulgated in such manner as the confirming au thority may direct	 and if no direction is given	 according to custom of the service and until promulgation has been effected	 confirmation is not complete and the finding and sentence shall not be held to have been confirmed until they have been promulgated. The provisions mentioned above show that confirmation of the findings and sentence of the court martial is necessary before the said finding or sentence become operative. In other words the confirmation of the findings and sentence is an integral part of the proceedings of a court martial and before the findings and sentence of a court martial are confirmed the same are examined by the deputy or assistant judge advocate general of the command which is intended as a check on the legality and propriety of the proceedings as well as the findings and sentence of the court martial. Moreover we find that in Section 162 an express provision has been made for recording of reasons based on merits of the case in relation to the proceedings of the summary courtmartial in cases where the said proceedings are set aside or the sentence is reduced and no other requirement for recording of reasons is laid down either in the Act or in the Rules in respect of proceedings for confirmation. The only inference that can be drawn from Section 162 is that reasons have to be recorded only in cases where the proceed ings of a summary court martial are set aside or the sen tence is reduced and not when the findings and sentence are confirmed. Section 162 thus negatives a requirement to give reasons on the part of the confirming authority while con firming the findings and sentence of a court martial and it must be held that the confirming authority is not required to record reasons while confirming the findings and sentence of the courtmartial. With regard to post confirmation proceedings we find that subsection (2) of Section 164 of the Act provides that any person subject to the Act who considers himself ag grieved by a finding or sentence of any court martial which has been confirmed	 may present a petition to the Central Government	 the Chief of the Army Staff or any prescribed officer superior in command to the one who confirmed such finding or sentence and the Central Government	 the Chief of the Army Staff or other officer	 as the case may be	 may pass such orders 70 thereon as it or he thinks fit. In so far as the findings and sentence of a court martial and the proceedings for confirmation of such findings and sentence are concerned it has been found that the scheme of the Act and the Rules is such that reasons are not required to be recorded for the same. Has the legislature made a departure from the said scheme in respect of post confirmation proceedings? There is nothing in the language of sub section (2) of Section 164 which may lend support to such an intention. Nor is there anything in the nature of post confirmation proceedings which may require recording of reasons for an order passed on the post confirmation petition even though reasons are not required to be recorded at the stage of recording of findings and sentence by a court martial and at the stage of confirmation of the findings and sentence of the court martial by the confirming authority. With regard to record ing of reasons the considerations which apply at the stage of recording of findings and sentence by the court martial and at the stage of confirmation of findings and sentence of the courtmartial by the confirming authority are equally applicable at the stage of consideration of the post confir mation petition. Since reasons are not required to be re corded at the first two stages referred to above	 the said requirement cannot	 in our opinion	 be insisted upon at the stage of consideration of post confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid it must be held that reasons are not required to be recorded for an order passed by the confirming authority confirming the findings and sentence recorded by the court martial as well as for the order passed by the Central Government dismissing the post confir mation petition. Since we have arrived at the same conclu sion as in Sorn Datt Datta case (Supra) the submission of Shri Ganguli that the said decision needs reconsideration cannot be accepted and is. therefore	 rejected. But that is not the end of the matter because even though there is no requirement to record reasons by the confirming authority while passing the order confirming the findings and sentence of the CourtMartial or by the Central Government while passing its order on the post confirmation petition	 it is open to the person aggrieved by such an order to challenge the validity of the same before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and he can obtain appropriate relief in those proceedings. We will	 therefore	 examine the other contentions that have 71 been urged by Shri Ganguli in support of the appeal. The first contention that has been urged by Shri Ganguli in this regard is that under sub section (1) of Section 164 of the Act the appellant had a right to make a representa tion to the confirming authority before the confirmation of the findings and sentence recorded by the court martial and that the said right was denied inasmuch as the appellant was not supplied with the copies of the relevant record of the court martial to enable him to make a complete representa tion and further that the representation submitted by the appellant under sub section (1) of Section 164 was not considered by the confirming authority before it passed the order dated May 11	 1979 confirming the findings and sen tence of the court martial. The learned Additional Solicitor General	 on the other hand	 has urged that under sub section (1) of Section 164 no right has been conferred on a person aggrieved by the findings or sentence of a court martial to make a representation to the confirming authority before the confirmation of the said findings or sentence. The submis sion of learned Additional Solicitor General is that while sub section (1) of Section 164 refers to an order passed by a court martial	 sub section (2) of Section 164 deals with the findings or sentence of a court martial and that the only right that has been conferred on a person aggrieved by the finding or sentence of a court martial is that under sub section (2) of Section 164 and the said right is avail able after the finding and sentence has been confirmed by the confirming authority. We find considerable force in the aforesaid submission of learned Additional Solicitor Gener al. Section 164 of the Act provides as under: "(1) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by any order passed by any court martial may present a petition to the officer or authority empowered to confirm any tinging or sentence of such court martial and the confirming authority may take such steps as may be considered necessary to satisfy itself as to the correct ness. legality or propriety of the order passed or as to the regularity of any proceeding to which the order relates. (2) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any court martial which has been confirmed	 may present a petition to the Central Government	 the Chief of the Army Staff or any prescribed officer superior in command to the one who 72 confirmed such finding or sentence and the Central Govern ment	 the Chief of the Army Staff or other officer	 as the case may be	 may pass such orders thereon as it or he thinks fit. " In sub section (1) reference is made to orders passed by a courtmartial and enables a person aggrieved by an order to present a petition against the same. The said petition has to be presented to the officer or the authority empowered to confirm any finding or sentence of such court martial and the said authority may take such steps as may be considered necessary to satisfy itself as to the correctness	 legality or propriety of the order or as to the regularity of any proceedings to which the order relates. Sub section (2)	 on the other hand	 makes specific reference to finding or sentence of a court martial. and confers a right on any person feeling aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any court martial which has been confirmed	 to present a peti tion to the Central Government	 Chief of the Army Staff or any prescribed officer. The use of the expression "order" in sub section (1) and the expression "finding or sentence" in sub section (2) indicates that the scope of sub section (1) and sub section (2) is not the same and the expression "order" in sub section (1) cannot be construed to include a "finding or sentence". In other words in so far as the finding and sentence of the court martial is concerned the only remedy that is available to a person aggrieved by the same is under sub section (2) and the said remedy can be invoked only after the finding or sentence has been con firmed by the confirming authority and not before the con firmation of the same. Rule 147 of the Rules also lends support to this view. In the said Rule it is laid down that every person tried by a court martial shall be entitled on demand	 at any time after the confirmation of the finding and sentence	 when such confirmation is required	 and before the proceedings are destroyed	 to obtain from the officer or person having the custody of the proceeding a copy thereof including the proceedings upon revision	 if any. This Rule envisages that the copies of proceedings of a court martial are to be supplied only after confirmation of the finding and sentence and that there is no right to obtain the copies of the proceedings till the finding and sentence have been confirmed. This means that the appellant cannot make a grievance about non supply of the copies of the proceedings of the court martial and consequent denial of his right to make a representation to the confirming authority against the findings and sentence of the court martial before the confirmation of the said finding and sentence. Though a person aggrieved by the finding or sentence of a courtmar tial has no right to make a representation before the confi ramtion 73 Of the same by the confirming authority	 but in case such a representation is made by a person aggrieved by the finding or sentence of a court martial it is expected that the confirming authority shall give due consideration to the same while confirming the finding and sentence of the court martial. In the present case the representation dated December 18	 1978 submitted by the appellant to the confirming au thority was not considered by the confirming authority when it passed the order of confirmation dated May 11	 1979. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India this was due to the reason that the said represen tation had not been received by the confirming authority till the passing of the order of confirmation. It appears that due to some communication gap within the department the representation submitted by the appellant did not reach the confirming authority till the passing of the order of con firmation. Since we have held that the appellant had no legal right to make a representation at that stage the non consideration of the same by the confirming authority before the passing of the order of confirmation would not vitiate the said order. Shri Ganguli next contended that the first and the second charge levelled against the appellant are identical in nature and since the appellant was acquitted of the second charge by the court martial his conviction for the first charge can not be sustained. It is no doubt true that the allegations contained in the first and the second charge are practically the same. But as mentioned earlier	 the second charge was by way of alternative to the first charge. The appellant could be held guilty of either of these charges and he could not be held guilty of both the charges at the same time. Since the appellant had been found guilty of the first charge he was acquitted of the second charge. There is	 therefore	 no infirmity in the court martial having found the appellant guilty of the first charge while holding him not guilty of the second charge. Shri Ganguli has also urged that the findings recorded by the court martial on the first and third charges are perverse inasmuch as there is no evidence to establish these charges. We find no substance in this contention. The first charge was that the appellant on or about December 1975	 having received 60.61 meters woollen serge from M/s Ram Chandra & Brothers	 Sadar Bazar	 Jhansi for stitching 19 coats and pants for Class IV civilian employees of his unit with intent to defraud 74 got 19 altered ordnance pattern woollen pants issued to the said civilian employees instead of pants stitched out of the cloth received. To prove this charge the prosecution exam ined Ram Chander P.W. 1 and Triloki Nath P.W. 2 of M/s Ram Chandra & Brothers	 Sadar Bazar	 Jhansi who have deposed that 60.61 meters of woollen serge cloth was delivered by them to the appellant in his office in December	 1975. The evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by B.D. Joshi	 Chowkidar	 P.W. 3	 who has deposed that in the last week of December	 1975	 the appellant had told him in his office that cloth for their liveries had been received and they should give their measurements. As regards the alteration of 19 ordnance pattern woollen pants which were issued to the civilian employees instead of the pants stitched out of the cloth that was received	 there is the evidence of N/sub. P. Vishwambharam P.W. 19 who has deposed that he was called by the appellant to his office in the last week of December	 1975 or the first week of January	 1976 and that on reaching there he found ordnance pattern woolien pants lying by the side of the room wall next to the appellant 's table and that the appellant had called Mohd. Sharif P.W. 15 to his office and had asked him to take out 19 woolien trousers out of the lot kept there in the office. After Mohd. Sharif had select ed 19 woollen trousers the appellant told Mohd. Sharif to take away these pants for alteration and refitting. The judge advocate	 in his summing up	 before the court martial	 has referred to this evidence on the first charge and the court martial	 in holding the appellant guilty of the first charge	 has acted upon it. It cannot	 therefore	 be said that there is no evidence to establish the first charge levelled against the appellant and the findings recorded by the court martial in respect of the said charge is based on no evidence or is perverse. The third charge	 is that the appellant having come to know that Capt. Gian Chand Chhabra while officiating OC of his unit	 improperly submitted wrong Contingent Bill No. 341/Q dated September 25	 1975 for Rs.16	280 omitted to initiate action against Capt. Chhabra. In his summing up before the court martial the judge advocate referred to the CDA letter M/IV/191 dated November 20	 1975 (Exh. 'CC ') raising cert in objection with regard to Contingent Bill No. 341/Q dated September 25	 1975 for Rs.16	280 and pointed out that the said letter was received in the unit on or about November 28	 1975 and bears the initials of the appellant with the aforesaid date and remark "Q Spk with details". This would show that the appellant had knowledge of the Contingent Bill on November 28	 1975. It is not the case of the appellant that he made any complaint against Captain 75 Chhabra thereafter. It cannot	 therefore	 be said that the finding recorded by the court martial on the third charge is based on no evidence and is perverse. In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. R.N.J. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was officiating as a Major though he held a substantive rank of Captain as a permanent Commissioned Officer of the army when on December 27	 1974 he took over as the Officer Commanding 38 Coy. A.S.C. (Sup) Type 'A ' attached to the Military Hospital	 Jhansi. In August	 1975 the Appellant went to attend a training course and returned in the first week of November. In his absence Captain G.C. Chhabra was commanding the unit of the appellant and he submitted a Contingent Bill dated September 25	 1975 for Rs.16	280 for winter liveries of the depot civilian chowki dars and sweepers. The said Bill was returned by the Con troller of Defence Accounts (CDA) with certain objections. Thereupon the appellant submitted a fresh contingent Bill dated December 25	 1975 for a sum of Rs.7	029.57. In view of the wide difference in the two Contingent Bills	 the CDA reported the matter to the Headquarters for investigation and a Court Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses. After considering the said report of the Court of En quiry the General Officer Commanding	 M.P.	 Bihar and Orissa recommended that 'severe displeasure ' (to be recorded) of the General Officer Commanding in Chief of the Central Command be awarded to the appellant. The General Officer Commanding in Chief Central Command	 however. did not agree with the said opinion and by order dated August 26	 1977 directed that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant for the lapses. Pursuant to the said order a charge sheet dated July 20	 1978 containing three charges was served on the appellant and it was directed that he be tried by General Court Mar tial. The first charge was	 doing of a thing with intent to defraud under section 52(f) of the Act. The second charge was alternative to the first charge i.e. commit 45 ting an act prejudicial to good order and military disci pline under section 63 of the Act and the third charge was also in respect of offence under section 63 of the Act. 'the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The General Court Martial on November 29	 1978 found him guilty of first and third charge and awarded the sentence of dis missal from service. Thereupon the appellant submitted petition dated December 18	 1978 to the Chief of Army Staff praying that the findings of the General Court Martial be not confirmed. The Chief of the Army Staff by his order dated May 11	 1979 confirmed the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial. The appellant thereafter submit ted a post confirmation petition under section 164(2) of the Act. This was rejected by the Central Government by order dated May 6	 1980. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave directed to be heard by the Constitution Bench for the reason that it involves the question as to whether it was incumbent for the Chief of the Army Staff	 while confirming the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial and for the Central Government while rejecting the post confirmation petition of the appellant to record their reasons for the orders passed by them. Dismissing the appeal	 this Court	 HELD: The requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercis ing quasi judicial functions irrespective of the fact wheth er the decision is subject to appeal	 revision or judicial review. It may	 however	 be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. [62H; 63A B] The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appel late or revisional authority	 if it affirms such an order	 need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revision al authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. [63B] Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication	 an administra tive authority exercising judicial or quasi judicial func tions is required to record ' the reasons for its decision. [65B] 46 The provisions contained in the and the Army Rules	 1954 negative a requirement to give reasons for its findings and sentence by a Court Martial and reasons are not required to be recorded in cases where the Court Martial makes a recommendation to mercy. Similarly	 reasons are not required to be recorded for an order passed by the confirm ing authority confirming the findings and sentence recorded by the Court Martial as well as for the order passed by the Central Government dismissing the post confirmation peti tion. [70E F] Sub section (1) of section 164 of the enables a person aggrieved by an order passed by a Court Martial to present a petition against the same. The expression "order" under sub section (1) does not include a finding or sentence of the Court Martial and in so far as the finding and sen tence of the Court Martial is concerned the only remedy that is available to a person aggrieved by the same is under sub section (2) of section 164 of the and the said remedy can be invoked only after the finding or sentence has been confirmed by the confirming authority and not before the confirmation of the same. [72B; D E] Though a person aggrieved by the finding or sentence of a Court Martial has no right to make a representation before the confirmation of the same by the confirming authority	 but in case such a representation is made by a person ag grieved by the finding or sentence of a Court Martial it is expected that the confirming authority shall give due con sideration to the same while confirming the finding and sentence of the Court Martial. [72H; 73A] Som Datt Datta vs Union of India & Ors.	 [1969] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bhagat Raja vs The Union of India & Ors.	 ; ; Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors.	 ; ; Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs Woolcombers Workers Union & Ant.	 [1974] I S.C.R. 503; Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr.	 ; Phelps Dodge Corporation vs National Labour Relations Board	 [1940] 85 Law Edn. 1271 at p. 1284; Securities and Exchange Commis sion vs Chenery Corporation; 	 at p. 636; John T. Dunlop vs Waiter Bachewski	 ; 377; Regina vs Gaming Board for Great Britain	 Exparte Benaim & Khaida	 ; at p. 431; Mc Innes vs Onslow Fane & Anr.	 at p. 1531; Breen vs Amalgamated Engineering Union & Ors.	 ; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. vs Crabtree	 [1974] I.C.R. 120; Regina vs Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Khan (Mahmud)	 ; Pure Spring Co. Ltd. vs Minister of National Revenue	 47 at p. 539; Re R.D.R. Construction Ltd. & Rent Review Commission	 168; Re Yar mouth Housing Ltd. & Rent Review Commission	 ; Osmond vs Public Service Board of New South Wales	 ; Public Service Board of New South Wales vs Osmond	 ; M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.	 ; ; Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors.	 ; ; Tranvancore Rayon Ltd. vs Union of India; 	 ; Tarachand Khatri vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.	 [1977] 2 S.C.R. 198; Raipur Development Authority & Ors. vs M/s. Chokhamal Con tractors & Ors.	 [1989] 2 S.C.C. 721; A.K. Kraipak & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. 	 ; R. vs Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex P. Moore	 [1965] 1 Q.B. 456 and Mahon vs Air New Zealand Ltd.	 	 referred to.