This petition is directed against an order of removal issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22nd January, 1991 which order was ultimately upheld by the appellate authority, the Chief Secretary by his order dated 23rd May, 1994. 2. The petitioner joined service as Peon vide office order No.217 of 1973 in the scale of pay of Rs. 807- -Rs. 1307- PM plus usual allowances as admissible under Rules with effect from the date of joining. On completion of one year qualifying service the petitioner was granted normal annual increments. This was done in respect of many other employees of the same grade by Government order issued in this regard. On 25th August, 1989 Extra Assistant Commissioner issued a letter to the petitioner asking the petitioner to explain regarding the accident involving damage of Motor Cycle No. ZRG 1990 on 15.8.89. It was mentioned in the letter that 15th was public holiday and as such it was presumed that use of the said Motor Cycle was not for official purpose. It was further stated that the Motor Cycle was to be parked within the office compound after office working hours. The petitioner gave his explanation. He denied that the accident took place because of taking liquor. His explanation was that while rubbing his eye with his hand, the byke jerked and as such suddenly accident took place. It was also stated that he was detailed for duty on 14.8.89 by the Deputy Commissioner. He proceeded to Zemabawk to locate the Administrative Officer as instructed by the Deputy Commissioner. While on duty that day, tyre got punctured. The tyre was then repaired at Zemabawk. While doing so he left the wrench at the spot. The next morning he proceeded to Zemabawk to pick up the wrench. It was that day the accident took place. It was an Independence Day. It was also further stated in his explanation that although there was no order in writing, the Officer-in-charge of vehicle had permitted the petitioner to take the byke home "when circumstance necessitates." On 14.8.89, the petitioner returned to office late. Everybody had left office including the Officer-in-charge of the vehicle. According to him it became inevitable for him to drive back the byke to his residence at Ramhlum. 3. Government Memorandum dated 25th September, 1989 was issued proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed. Everybody had left office including the Officer-in-charge of the vehicle. According to him it became inevitable for him to drive back the byke to his residence at Ramhlum. 3. Government Memorandum dated 25th September, 1989 was issued proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed. Similar reply was given to the Article of Charge. In the meantime the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18th September, 1989. Shri L. Haokhomang Haokip was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges brought against the petitioner. Enquiry was duly conducted. Four persons were examined as witnesses. Three were drivers and the 4th one was the Officer-in-charge of vehicles. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner himself stated that on 14.8.89 he had heavy duty of distribution of Daks, and in connection with the work of distribution of Dak he had to use the Motor Byke. So far so good. The problem began when he was accused of driving the Motor Cycle after taking liquor. The further accusation as mentioned above was that he used the Motor Cycle without authority and permission especially on 15th when the accident actually took place. In my view without entering into elaborate details of the circumstances and also the few evidences that were made available through the four witnesses, it must be expected that the Motor Cycle being office property it could not in normal circumstances be taken home and if one had to take it home it should be perhaps with permission from the appropriate authority. Whether or not on 14.8.89, the petitioner was specifically permitted to take the vehicle home need not be an issue that should stand in way of decision of this case. Obviously even in terms of his statement no specific permission as such was given for 14.8.89 although according to him depending on circumstances such taking home of the vehicle is to be allowed. In terms of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had denied having consumed "even a drop of liquor" before and at the time of meeting these drivers. These drivers would mean the three drivers who are said to have seen him at Dinthar Junction in a drunken mood. In terms of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had denied having consumed "even a drop of liquor" before and at the time of meeting these drivers. These drivers would mean the three drivers who are said to have seen him at Dinthar Junction in a drunken mood. Also the Enquiry Officer stated that the three drivers who were examined stated that none of them knew whether "PC Vanlaltana was drunk or not." According to the Enquiry Officer even the witnesses were really out to help the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty "of taking out ZRG 1990 out of office on 14.8.89 without permission from proper authority, and causing accident to the said vehicle on public holiday i.e. on 15.8.89 (Independence Day)." On receipt of the report, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl issued order of removal of the petitioner from service on 22nd January, 1991. Therefore, it is presumed that such order of removal was issued on the basis of the statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner earlier approached in Civil Rule No.28 of 1993 against the order of removal and also stating that although he had duly preferred an appeal before the Chief Secretary, the appeal was never disposed of. This Court disposed of the said Civil Rule on 23.3.94 directing the Chief Secretary to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of the order. By order dated 23rd May, 1994, the Chief Secretary rejected the appeal of the petitioner by affirming the order of removal issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 22nd January, 1991. Hence the petition. 4. Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no defence assistant was provided at the time of enquiry. This according to him was absolutely necessary because of the fact that the petitioner is not a literate person. Even otherwise, it is submitted that defence assistance is necessary in such proceeding. Also at the time of issuance of the order of removal by the learned Deputy Commissioner relevant documents that is to say copies of statements made by the four witnesses and enquiry report etc. were not duly furnished to the petitioner. As such no effective representation/appeal could have been made before the appellate authority. Also at the time of issuance of the order of removal by the learned Deputy Commissioner relevant documents that is to say copies of statements made by the four witnesses and enquiry report etc. were not duly furnished to the petitioner. As such no effective representation/appeal could have been made before the appellate authority. This according to the learned counsel is also another legal infirmity and on this score alone the impugned order issued by the Chief Secretary should be set aside. It is the contention of the petitioner that in fact he got the enquiry report only on 3rd May, 1993. It is submitted that the order of removal was made without application of mind inasmuch as no reason whatsoever is assigned as to the justification of removal of the petitioner from service. On careful perusal it appears, it was simply a mechanical type of order. Some evidences were recorded. Report was submitted. Therefore, in my view that disciplinary authority ought to have given some reasons to show that the material as that were placed before the disciplinary authority were taken into consideration before the order of removal was issued on 22nd January, 1991. Para 8 of the appellate order states :- " And whereas, the appellant had not brought any additional evidence during the course of personal hearing granted to him on 20.5.94 to disprove the charges and that no procedural lapses had been noticed by the undersigned in the entire disciplinary proceedings drawn up against him till the conclusion of the enquiry upto his ultimate removal from service." This finding of the learned appellate authority appears to be incorrect inasmuch as the appellant/petitioner would not in fact have any opportunity of producing additional evidence before the appellate authority. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have minutely examined the materials recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The learned appellate authority is expected to examine "whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record" in terms of Rule.27 (2) (b) of the Central Service (CCA) Rules, 1965. As I have stated above, the disciplinary authority simply issued order of removal. No material or evidence whatsoever was discussed in the order of removal Clearly therefore, it is a case of non-application of mind to the facts and materials of the case on records. 5. Government has filed affidavit. As I have stated above, the disciplinary authority simply issued order of removal. No material or evidence whatsoever was discussed in the order of removal Clearly therefore, it is a case of non-application of mind to the facts and materials of the case on records. 5. Government has filed affidavit. The main contention made on behalf of the Govt. is that the petitioner used the Motor Cycle without authority on 14.8.89. On 15.8.89 which was a public holiday, the petitioner had absolutely no right to use the said vehicle. It is also the contention of the Govt. that even if for some reason the petitioner could not report back to the authority regarding the accident that took place on 15.8.89 because it is a Holiday, on 16.8.89 which was a working day, the petitioner ought to have reported the matter in the first hour. This the petitioner did not do. According to Govt affidavit the petitioner reported the matter only on 17.8.89. In view of this, it is submitted that a case of miscoduct was clearly made out against the petitioner and therefore the punishment of removal from service was awarded. According to the learned Govt. Advocate the punishment of the removal from service is reasonable and therefore this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the order of removal. It is also submitted that after the order of removal was issued, the petitioner had made a request for cash payment in lieu of leave, terminal gratuity, balance providend fund, death-cum-retirement gratuity etc. According to the learned Govt Advocate this would clearly go to show that the petitioner had accepted the order of termination issued by the competent authority. It may be stated that no such thing is reflected either in the order of removal issued by the Deputy Commissioner or in the order of confirmation issued by the appellate authority. It appears, this submission cannot be accepted inasmuch as it is a fact that the petitioner filed representation or appeal against the Chief Secretary. As the appeal was not decided in time, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier. As mentioned above, only after direction was issued, the learned appellate authority the Chief Secretary disposed of the appeal by his order dated 23rd May, 1994. As the appeal was not decided in time, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier. As mentioned above, only after direction was issued, the learned appellate authority the Chief Secretary disposed of the appeal by his order dated 23rd May, 1994. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the petitioner had accepted the order of removal issued by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. It is also further submitted by Mr. Madhusudhanan, learned Govt Advocate that not only that the petitioner used Govt. property viz. the Motor Byke in question without authority and on public holiday involving the said vehicle in an accident, but the vehicle was so badly damaged that it become beyond economic repair. In this regard a copy of inspection report of Motor Vehicle Inspector has been made available before this Court today. It is contended by Mr. Lalrinthanga that no such report was ever made available at the time of enquiry and also when this petitioner approached this Court in the earlier writ petition. It is also further stated that even in the present petition, this inspection report has not been made available. Therefore, the fact that the Motor Cycle in question was damaged beyond repair could not have been a factor that would have contributed while fixing the quantum of punishment after the enquiry report was submitted. It appears the submission made by Mr. Lalrinthanga has some force. It is nowhere reflected in the enquiry report that such report was indeed submitted by a competent Motor Mechanic Inspector. At the same time on perusal of the report, it is found that indeed the Motor Vehicle Inspector made inspection of the Motor Cycle only on the 21st March, 1994. The Motor Cycle in question was involved in an accident on 15th August, 1989. What actually happended to the Motor Cycle between 15th August, 1989 and 21st March, 1994 is known only to the competemt authority. In my view the report made by the MVI in March, 1994 cannot be of any consequence as far as the present case is concerned. 7.1 have heard Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Madhusudhanan, learned Govt. Advocate at length. It appears to me that the petitioner cannot be said to be without fault. In other, words, the petitioner does not appear to be a disciplined Govt. servant. 7.1 have heard Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Madhusudhanan, learned Govt. Advocate at length. It appears to me that the petitioner cannot be said to be without fault. In other, words, the petitioner does not appear to be a disciplined Govt. servant. Even assuming that circumstances compelled him to take the vehicle on 14.8.89, he ought to have informed the authority when the accident took place and he should have explained the circumstances satisfactorily at the earliest possible moment. It is unusual that he should have kept quite for two full days after the accident took place. Therefore, in my view the petitioner committed misconduct. After all every Govt. servant is expected to behave in a disciplined manner. 8, In the light of the circumstances stated that above, I have given a very serious consideration as to the quantum of punishment that has been meted out to the petitioner. The order of removal in my view is a very serious one. After all service is so dear to one who has found employment with great difficulty. This employment once snatched away, will never be available to the same person. At the same time once service goes the means of livelihood is completely gone. It will affect the welfare of the petitioner and his family members especially dependants of the Government servant. One point that should not be forgotten is that before the order of removal was issued, the petitioner had already put in as many as seventeen years continuous and uninterrupted service. Therefore, the order of removal in the circumstances of the present case appears to be too severe. In other words for the solitary incident of mistake or misconduct of the petitioner involving the motor cycle accident causing some damage to the Motor Cycle, to remove him from service would be rather disproportionate. 9. In the result, in the facts and circumstances that I have stated above and on humanitarian grounds, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if I pass the following order : (l) The petitioner shall be reinstated with effect from 1st July, 1995. (2) the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages between the period 1 of order of removal and the date of reinstatement. (2) the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages between the period 1 of order of removal and the date of reinstatement. However, the entire period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be counted for other service benefits including pension. This petition is accordingly disposed of.