ORDER S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner has assailed the second part of the order dated 31-3-1980 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by means of which the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the order inflicting minor punishment was rejected. 2. The petitioner, who was posted as a Court clerk in the office of consolidation department was earlier placed under suspension, charge-sheeted and thereafter completion of departmental inquiry against him, he was ordered to be reinstated, but a minor punishment of adverse remark in his character roll and forfeiture of salary during the period of suspension was imposed upon him. Later on after holding inquiry, his services were terminated. He filed a reference before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal challenging the order of termination of services as well as for rejection of minor penalty against him. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal declared the order of termination dated 25-6-1971 passed against the petitioner as illegal and void and set aside the same but rejected the prayer for setting aside the earlier order imposing minor punishment. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal has given a finding that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charges and thereafter he was given minor punishment. It was held that the order passed by the punishment authority indicated sufficient reasons and procedure for inflicting minor punishment has been complied with. 3. Rule 5B of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for subordinate service, Uttar Pradesh reads as under : "5B(a) Wherever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reason exists for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty - (i) censure, or (ii) Stoppage of an efficiency bar. Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority imposes the penalty of- (i) withholding increments in the time scale at stages where there is no efficiency bar, or (ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders, formal proceedings embodying a statement of the offence or fault, the explanation of the person concerned, and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded : Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings in cases where a Government servant's increment in the time scale of his pay, at any stage other than an efficiency bar, is stopped due to his integrity remaining uncertified." A perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates that the procedure for inflicting minor penalties different from the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalty. It imposes upon the punishing authority the duty to give reasons for the punishment. The minor punishment dated 23-6-1971 passed against the petitioner reads as under : - "Shri Ghulam Mohammad bahala kiye jate hain. Inki Charitra panji mein pratikool pravishti ki jati hai, ki yeh apne pad ke kartavyon ke prati shithilta baratne, aniyamit kam karne evam ukt shithilta va aniyamitta ko chchipane ke liya, jhoothi aar lene, agya ullanghan karne our apne adhikariyon ko jhoothi report dekar dhoka dene ke doshi hain. Ukt duracharan ke liye inki ninda ki jathi hai. Nilamban avadhi ka vetan nirvah, vetan bhatta ke atirikt shesh in per jurman vakiya jata hai. In heir aadesh diya jata hai ki chak-bandi adhikari chhetra cyal ke turant apni upasthithi per soochna dein." The order of Public Services Tribunal indicates that the aforesaid order was passed against the petitioners after a full fledged inquiry in which he was given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charge. But the order does not indicate as to whether the punishing authority has even considered the report of the Enquiry Officer. The order also does not indicate any reason for agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The order actually does not show or indicate any reason for inflicting the minor penalty against the petitioner. But the order does not indicate as to whether the punishing authority has even considered the report of the Enquiry Officer. The order also does not indicate any reason for agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The order actually does not show or indicate any reason for inflicting the minor penalty against the petitioner. Although no formal charge or charges needed to be framed but it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to draw formal proceedings. The explanation of persons and the reasons for punishment ought to have been indicated but the order does not indicate any such thing. Only the punishment was imposed and no reasons for inflicting such a punishment were indicated for arriving to a conclusion to punish the petitioner. Thus the order cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with Rule 5B of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for subordinate services, Uttar Pradesh. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal while passing its order ignored to consider this aspect of the matter and wrongly came to a conclusion that the reasons had been given for imposing the punishment which appeared to be sufficient and reasonable. 4. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 31-3-1980 contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal so far as the same concerns the infliction of minor punishment and the order dated 24-6-1971 contained in Annexure 3 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lakhimpurkheri imposing' the punishment of censure entry into the character roll as well as the order dated 24th June, 1971 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation contained in Annexure 4 regarding forfeiting of his salary during the period of suspension. In the circumstances of the' case there will be no order as to costs.