Aggalwal, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India Dr. P. G. Adyalkar, the petitioner herein,has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 8/07/1983 by the President of India imposing on the petitioner the penalty of "dismissal from service". The petitionerat the relevant time was posted as Director, Eastern Region,central Ground Water Board, Calcutta. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are these. In response to an advertisement dated 6/12/1952 of the Union Public Servicecommission for the post of Assistant Geologist, Geological Survey of India, the petitioner sent his application dated 2 6/12/1952. The petitioner in the application declared thathe belonged to halba scheduled tribe. The petitioner wasselected by the Union Public Service Commission and recommended for appointment as Assistant Geologist in the Geologicalsurvey of India against a post exclusively reserved for scheduledtribe candidates. The petitioner joined as Assistant Geologiston 27/10/1953. ( 3 ) IN response to an advertisement dated 10/12/1955 for the post of Geologist (Junior) the petitioner submittedhis application dated 20/12/1955 declaring therein thathe belonged to halba scheduled tribe. The Director, Geological Survey of India, in the letter dated 29/12/1955while forwarding the application stated that though the applicant (petitioner) did not possess the required experience of five yearsin geological work his application is being forwarded for consideration as a special case as he came from the scheduled tribecommunity. The petitioner was selected by the Union Publicservice Commission and recommended for appointment to thepost of Geologist (Junior) against a post open to the candidatesfrom all communities. The petitioner joined as Geoloagist (Junior) with effect from 3/05/1957. ( 4 ) ON 1/07/1957 the petitioner was confirmed in the postof Assistant Geologist with effect from 1/07/1957 against oneof the ten permanent posts reserved for scheduled caste/scheduledtribe candidates. ( 5 ) ON a complaint that the petitioner had obtained the appointment to the post of Assistant Geologist by making a falsedeclaration that he belonged to halba scheduled tribe an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under rule 14 of thecentral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965. The petitioner was charged as under: "that the said Dr. ( 5 ) ON a complaint that the petitioner had obtained the appointment to the post of Assistant Geologist by making a falsedeclaration that he belonged to halba scheduled tribe an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under rule 14 of thecentral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965. The petitioner was charged as under: "that the said Dr. P. G. Adyalkar, now functioning asdirector, Central Ground Water Board, Easternregion, Calcutta, under the Government of India,ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Departmentof Agriculture and Cooperation, derived the followingadvantages in obtaining service as Assistant Geologist,geological Survey of India, and thereafter by virtueof his false declaration that he belongs to "halba scheduled Tribe: (1) In response to an advertisement dated 6-12-52of UPSC for the post of Assistant Geologist, Geological Survey of India, he sent his application dated26th December, 1952 falsely declaring thereinthat he belongs to halba scheduled Tribe. Hewas selected by the UPSC and recommended for appointment as Assistant Geologist in Geologicalsurvey of India against a post exclusively reservedfor Scheduled Tribe candidates. He joined asasstt. Geologist on 27-10-1953. (2) In response to an advertisement dt. 10th Dec. ,1955 for the post of Geologist (Junior), he submitted his application dt. 28-12-55 falsely declaring therein that he belongs to halba Scheduled276tribe. In the letter dt. 29th Dec. , 1955, thedirector, Geological Survey of India, while forwarding his application stated that though he didnot possess the required experience of 5 years ingeological work, his application was sent forconsideration as a special case as he came fromscheduled Tribe community. He was selectedby the UPSC and recommended for appointmentto the post of Geologist (Junior) against a postopen to candidates for all communities. He joinedas Geologist (Jr) w. e. f. 3-5-57. (3) He was confirmed in the post of Asstt- Geologistw. e. f. 1-7-1957 against one of the 10 permanentposts reserved for Scheduled Caste Scheduledtribe Candidates. Dr. P. G. Adyalkar has, thus, exhibited lack ofintegrity thereby violating Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964". ( 6 ) THE petitioner claimed that he originally belonged tovillage Gullarghat in Melghat Tehsil in Amravati district ofmaharashtra and that he belonged to halba Scheduled Tribe,and that the word koshti is purely an occupational name to aweaver. The petitioner claimed that his caste is halba koshti. 7. ( 6 ) THE petitioner claimed that he originally belonged tovillage Gullarghat in Melghat Tehsil in Amravati district ofmaharashtra and that he belonged to halba Scheduled Tribe,and that the word koshti is purely an occupational name to aweaver. The petitioner claimed that his caste is halba koshti. 7. The central issue that arose for determination before theenquiry Officer was whether the petitioner had by virtue of afalse declaration that he belonged to halba scheduled tribeobtained the appointment to the post of Assistant Geologist in1953, thereafter to the post of Geologis (Junior) in 1957. Theprosecution examined a number of witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. The petitioner in his defenceexamined some witnesses. The Enquiry Officer after a detaileddiscussion of the material placed before him found as follows: "it is found proved that Dr. Adyalkar has all along beenshown as koshti caste in all his educational recordand not as halba scheduled tribe. However, whileit is proved that he was appointed as Assistant Geologistin GSI, against S-T. vacancy, it is also found thathe would nave been confirmed as Assistant Geologistfrom 1-7-57, and appointed as Geologist Jr. from3-5-57 even if he had not been treated as ascheduled Tribe candidate, i. e, he could have gotthese benefits as a general candidate due to his competence and learning in the normal course. " ( 8 ) THE case was sent for the opinion and advice of the Unionpublic Service Commission. The Commission after discussing theevidence produced before the Enquiry Officer held that charge Iwas fully proved against Dr. Adyalkar and charges 2 and 3partially proved. The Commission gave the following advice : "in the light of their findings as stated above, and after taking into account all other factors relevant to thecase the Commission consider that charges provedagainst Dr. Adyalkar involve lack of integrity and thathe is not a fit person to be retained in Government. service. The Commission advice that the penalty ofdismissal from service be imposed on Dr. Adyalkar. " ( 9 ) THE President of India who was the disciplinary authorityby his order dated 8/07/1983 imposed on the petitioner thepenalty of dismissal from service. The relevant portion of theimpugned order reads as under : "and whereas the Enquiry Authority has since finalisedits Report on the 2/04/1983. Adyalkar. " ( 9 ) THE President of India who was the disciplinary authorityby his order dated 8/07/1983 imposed on the petitioner thepenalty of dismissal from service. The relevant portion of theimpugned order reads as under : "and whereas the Enquiry Authority has since finalisedits Report on the 2/04/1983. And whereas on the careful consideration of the reportof the Enquiry Authority and on the basis of theevidence adduced during the inquiry and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission the President is of the opinion that goodand sufficient reasons exist for imposing a "major"penalty on Dr. Adyalkar, Director, Easternregion, Central Ground Water Board, Calcutta;now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredon him under Rule 15 (4) of the Central Civilservices (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1965, the President hereby imposes upondt. P. O. Adyalkar the penalty of "dismissal,from SERVICE" as specified under clause (ix) of Rule 11 Ibid and the said Dr. P. G. Adyalkar, Director, Eastern Region, Centralground Water Board, Calcutta, shall standdismissed from service with effect from theafternoon of the 13/07/1983. " ( 10 ) TO appreciate the contentions urged by Mr. Jain, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, some of the provisions of the Centralcivil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules needto be noticed. Rule 11 enumerates the penalties that can be imposed on a government servant. Clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11specify the minor* penalties and clauses (v) to (ix) the major penalties. Rule 14 lays down the procedure for imposing majorpenalties. Sub-rule (2) of rule 14 provides that whenever thedisciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds forinquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct ormisbehaviour against a government servant it may itself inquireinto or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of thepublic Servants (Enquiry) Act, 1850, as the case may be, anauthority to inquire into the truth thereof. The explanation tosub-rule (2) provides that where the disciplinary authority itselfholds an enquiry any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20)and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiry authority shall be construedas a reference to the disciplinary authority. The explanation tosub-rule (2) provides that where the disciplinary authority itselfholds an enquiry any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20)and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiry authority shall be construedas a reference to the disciplinary authority. Sub-rule (23) whichis important reads as under : " (23) (i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a reportshall be prepared and it shall contain (a) the articles of charge and the statement of theimputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (b) the defence of the Government servant in respectof each article of charge ; (c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of eacharticle of charge. (d) the findings on each article of charge andreasons therefor. Explanation. If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedingof the inquiry establish any article of charge different from theoriginal articles of the charge, it may record its findings on sucharticle of charge:provided that the findings on such article of charge shallnot be recorded unless the Government servanhas either admitted the facts on which such articleof charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article ofcharge. (ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itselfthe disciplinary authority, shall forward to thedisciplinary authority the records of inquirywhich shall include (a) the report prepared by it under clause (i) : (b) the written statement of defence, if any. submitted by the Government servant ; (c) the oral and documentary evidence producedin the course of the inquiry:rule 15 reads as under: "15. (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itselfthe inquiring authority may, for reasons to berecorded by it in writing remit the case to theinquiring authority for further inquiry and report,and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceedto hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagreeswith the findings of the inquiring authority on anyarticle of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on suchcharge if the evidence on record is sufficient forthe purpose. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagreeswith the findings of the inquiring authority on anyarticle of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on suchcharge if the evidence on record is sufficient forthe purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to itsfindings on all or any of the articles of chargeis of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should beimposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, makean order imposing such penalty:provided that in every case where it is necessary toconsult the Commission the record of the inquiry-shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority tothe Commission for its advice and such adviceshall be taken into consideration before makingany order imposing any penalty on the Governmentservant. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to itsfindings on all or any of the articles of chargeand on the basis of the evidence adduced duringthe inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11should be imposed on thj Gcvernment servant, itshall make an order imposing such penalty andit shall not be necessary to give the Governmentservant any opportunity of making representationon the penalty proposed to be imposed :provided that in every case where it is necessary toconsult the Commission, the record of the inquiryshall be forwarded by the disciplinary authorityto the Commission for its advice and such adviceshall be taken into consideration before makingan order imposing any such penalty on the Governmeantservant. " ( 11 ) SHRI jain contended that the disciplinary authority inpassing the order dismissing the petitioner from service hasnot given a speaking order. The contention is that thedisciplinary authority should have given a reasoned order andrecorded its findings on each of the charges. The counselcontended that the reasons mentioned in the order "on thecareful consideration of the report of the inquiry authorityand on the basis of the evidence adduced during the evidenceand in consultation with the Union Public Service Commissionthe President is of the opinion that good and sufficient reasonsexist for imposing a majorpenalty" does not make the order aspeaking order. The counsel contended that under sub-rule (4)of rule 15 the disciplinary authority should have recordedseparate findings on each of the charges and thereafter Voidedon the penalty to be imposed on the charged officer. The counsel contended that under sub-rule (4)of rule 15 the disciplinary authority should have recordedseparate findings on each of the charges and thereafter Voidedon the penalty to be imposed on the charged officer. ( 12 ) SHRI Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents,contended that rule 15 envisages four situations, (i) where thedisciplinary authority for reasons to be recorded by it is ofthe view that further inquiry needs to be made in the case itmay remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiryand report, (ii) where the disciplinary authority disagreeswith the findings of the inquiring authority on any article ofcharge, the disciplinary authority may record its reasons forsuch disagreement and thereafter record its own findings onsuch charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for thepurpose, (iii) where the disciplinary authority having regardits findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of theopinion that all or any of the articles of charge is proved thenit may, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, makean order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (1)to (iv) of rule 16, and (iv) where the disciplinary authorityhaving regard to its findings on all or any of the articles ofcharge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during theinquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified inclauses (v) to (ix) of rule II should be imposed on thegovernment servant it may make the order imposing suchpenalty. The counsel contended that the words in sub-rules (3) and (4) "if the disciplinary authority having regard to itsfindings on all or any of the articles of charge" contemplatecases in which the disciplinary authority itself had held theinquiry. The counsel contended that where the disciplinaryauthority accepts or agrees with the findings of the inquiryofficer it has not to record its own findings and make a reasonedorder. ( 13 ) ON giving the case my careful thought I am not inclinedto agree with the contentions of Shri Chaudhary. Under rule14 (2) the inquiry can be held either by the disciplinaryauthority itself or it may appoint another authority to inquireinto the allegations. Under sub-rule (23) on the conclusionof the inquiry a report has to be prepared as provided in thesaid sub-rule. Under rule14 (2) the inquiry can be held either by the disciplinaryauthority itself or it may appoint another authority to inquireinto the allegations. Under sub-rule (23) on the conclusionof the inquiry a report has to be prepared as provided in thesaid sub-rule. Rule 14 (23) (ii) provides that where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority the inquiringauthority shall forward to the disciplinary authority the recordsof the inquiry containing the report and the other documentsmentioned therein. In my view. irrespective of the fact whetherthe inquiry is held by the disciplinary authority or by anyother authority appointed by the disciplinary authority it is the disciplinary authority alone which has to come to a conclusion on the consideration of the evidence on the record whetherall or any of the charges are. established against the chargedofficer and thereafter to decide on the penalty it deems fit to. impose. This would mean that the disciplinary authority hasto apply its mind to all the material before it and separate findings on all the charges. This, obviously, has to beby a reasoned order. The mere mention in the order "that theinquiry report and the evidence produced during the inquiryhas been carefully considered" does not, in my opinion, satisfythe requirements of law. I do not mean to suggest that thedisciplinary authority has to give a detailed reasoned orderbut the order must show application of mind. ( 14 ) THE impugned order does not, even, show that thedisciplinary authority had agreed with or accepted the findingsof the inquiring authority. Shri, Chaudhary contended thatthe executive notes culminating in the impugned order showthat the disciplinary authority had agreed with the findings ofthe inquiring authority. The application of mind should bediscernible from the order itself and it would not be permissible to refer to the executive files to guess the reasons. ( 15 ) THE abovte view finds support from the instructionsissued in July 1981 by the department of personnel andadministrative Reforms that the order of the disciplinary appel-late reviewing aulthority should be self-contained speakingand reasoned order. ( 16 ) IN R. S. Sehgal v. Director General, Posts and Telegraphs and others, 1983 (2) Service Law Reporter p. 4. 73 (1), Mr. Justice S. B. Wad held: "there is no doubt that the impugned order is a nonspeaking order. Being a quasi-judicial order the order must be reasoned order. ( 16 ) IN R. S. Sehgal v. Director General, Posts and Telegraphs and others, 1983 (2) Service Law Reporter p. 4. 73 (1), Mr. Justice S. B. Wad held: "there is no doubt that the impugned order is a nonspeaking order. Being a quasi-judicial order the order must be reasoned order. The law on thepoint has been very clearly laid down by variousdecisions of High Courts and the Supreme Court. A final order passed by the Disciplinary Authoritymust discuss the Department s case, the petitioner sdefence, the evidence of both the parties, thereasons why the Department s evidence is moreacceptable than that of the delinquent The authority must record separate findings on each of thecharges. These are not only the requirements ofa fair trial but the procedure prescribedby Rule14 also requires the same. In the impugned orderthe Director General has stated that he has "appliedhis mind" and "on an objective assessment" heldthat the charge against the petitioner is proved. Mere use of words "application of mind" and"objective assessment" does not make an order aspeaking order. It must be disclosed in the orderitself as to how the mind worked, on what materialand how the finding was reached. The order mustfurther disclose that the evidence has been objectively assessed, both for the conclusion of guiltand the appropriateness of punishment. As observed by Punjab and Haryana High Court inrajinderpal Abrol v. State of Punjab, 1971 (2)S. L. R. 130 (2) "application of judicial mind hasto be seen from the order itself and not that thereasons are to be guessed from the scrutiny ofexecutive files. " ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated I hold that the impugnedorder is not legal and valid and it is quashed. The disciplinaryauthority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in conformity with law. ( 18 ) BEFORE concluding I would like to emphasise for theconsideration of the disciplinary authority that the petitionerjoined the service in 1953. The impugned order was passed on 13/07/1983. The petitioner is due for retirement in July1985. The confidential note file which was produced before meshows that the performance of the petitioner has throughoutbeen very good. This circumstance, to my mind, would berelevant in taking a decision on the question of penalty. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that hisclient is immediately willing to seek voluntary retirement. The confidential note file which was produced before meshows that the performance of the petitioner has throughoutbeen very good. This circumstance, to my mind, would berelevant in taking a decision on the question of penalty. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that hisclient is immediately willing to seek voluntary retirement. Itwould for the disciplinary authority to decide in case it findsthe petitioner guilty of the charges as to what punishment itshould give. ( 19 ) ANOTHER factor which I would like to bring to thenotice of the disciplinary authority for its consideration is thatthe petitioner in the admission form for the B. Sc. examinationin 1947 had given his caste "halba Koshti". This could notbe a deliberate pre-thought out statement. ( 20 ) THE petition is disposed of. The parties shall beartheir own costs.