The appeals arise from the common judgement of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2646 of 1990 and batch. The appellant for short 'the Board' conducted secondary examinations in the month of March 1990, whereat the marks awarded, after the formalities of valuation by the examiners of the answer-sheets in each subject; the random counter check by the moderators and further recounting at the Board, Moderators' mark-sheets sent to Pune for feeding the computer to declare the results were found tampered with the appellant. Thereon, admittedly, it was found that moderators' mark-sheets relating to 283 examinees which include 53 respondents in these appeals were tampered, in many a case in more than 2 to 8 subjects, and in few cases in one subject. As a result, 214 examinees have improved their ranking, which would be in some cases exceptionally good. The declaration of their results were withheld pending further enquiry and the rest declared on June 30, 1990. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court against non-declaration of the results and the High Court directed to take expeditious action to declare the results of the examination within the specified time. The Board appointed seven enquiry officers to conduct the enquiry. Show cause notices were issued to the students on July 30, 1990 informing them of the nature of tampering, the subjects in which the marks were found tampered with, the marks initially obtained and the marks increased due to tampering, and also indicated the proposed punishment, if in the enquiry it would be found that marks were tampered with the knowledge or connivance or at the instance of the candidates or parents or guardians. They were also informed that they would be at liberty to inspect the documents at the Divisional Board at Bombay. They were entitled to adduce documentary and oral evidence at the hearing. They will also be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Board, if any. They would not be entitled to appear through an Advocate, but the parents or guardians would be permitted to accompany the students at the time of enquiry, but they are not entitled to take part in the enquiry. The candidates submitted their explanations denying the tampering and appeared before the Enquiry Officers on August 8, 9, 10, 20, 21 and 22, 1990. At the enquiry, each student inspected the record. A questionnaire was given to be filled in writing. Every candidate was shown his answer book, marks awarded in the subject/subjects and the tampered marks in the moderators' mark sheets. All the candidates admitted that the marks initially awarded by the examiner were tampered in the moderators mark-sheets; due to tampering the marks were increased and the increase was to their advantage. However, they denied that either they or their parents or guardians were privy to the tampering. The Enquiry Officers submitted their reports holding that the moderators mark-sheets have been fabricated and submitted the reports to the Board. The Standing Committee constituted in this regard considered the records and the reports on August 29, 1990, discussed pros and cons and expressed certain doubts about the possibility of the candidates/parents/guardians committing fabrication. They sought for and obtained legal opinion in that regard. On August 30, 1990 the standing committe resolved to with hold, as a measure of punishment, the declaration of the results of their examinations and to debar the 283 students to appear in the supplementary examination to be held in October, 1990 and March, 1991. The notification was published on August 31, 1990 and submitted the report to the High Court. There-after the High Court considered the cases on merits. The learned Judges by separate but concurrent judgements allowed the writ petitions. Unless the rule expressly or by necessary implications, excludes recording of reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fair play does require recording of reasons as a part of fair procedure. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of the rules, but at the least, the record should disclose reasons. It may not be like a judgement. But the reasons may be precise.