Judgment J. N. Dubey, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.4.1993 of respondent No.3, district Magistrate, Gaya, dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. It appears that the petitioner was working on the post of peon in the office of respondent No.3. District Magistrate Gaya. On 6.12.1988, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension by respondent No.3. On 14.9.1989, he was served with a chargesheet containing the following charges : "1]. That the petitioner had misbehaved with Shri Nand Lal Prasad on 6.12.1988; 2]. He was under the influence of alcohol when he had gone to the chamber of Shri Prasad on 6.12.1988;.3]. He had been availing leave by giving applications for the same on grounds which were not justified. " The petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the explanation of the petitioner, submitted his report to respondent no.3 on 13.12.1989 with the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established and recommended that the matter might be dropped after giving him a warning. However, respondent No.3, by his order dated 5.1.1991, imposed two penalties namely, stoppage of one increment and a severe warning. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 who, by his order dated 25.9.1992, directed respondent no.3 to serve a second notice on the petitioner to show cause why he might not be dismissed from service. On 2.12.1992, the petitioner was served with a second notice by respondent No.3 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.12.1992. Respondent No.3 dismissed the petitioner from service on 17.4.1993. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In my opinion, the impugned order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer did not record any evidence in the case and submitted his report to respondent No.3 after receiving explanation from the petitioner. He, in his report, had held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and, as such, the matter might be dropped after giving him a warning. Respondent No.3, however, without assigning any reason, imposed two minor penalties on the petitioner. He, in his report, had held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and, as such, the matter might be dropped after giving him a warning. Respondent No.3, however, without assigning any reason, imposed two minor penalties on the petitioner. In absence of any material on record to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, respondent No.3 was not legally justified in imposing any penalties on the petitioner more so when the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and had recommended that the matter might be dropped after giving him a warning. Similarly, respondent No.2, while considering the appeal of the petitioner was not legally justified in directing respondent No.3 to serve second notice on the petitioner to show cause why he might not be dismissed from service, more so when no cross-appeal was preferred by anybody against the order of respondent No.3 imposing minor punishments on the petitioner. Even assuming that respondent No.2 was convinced that the punishments imposed on the petitioner by respondent No.3 was not in consonance with the charges levelled against him, he could at best order fresh enquiry but under no circumstance he could propose penalty of dismissal and direct respondent No.3 to complete the formality of giving a second notice and pass the order of dismissal. 5. It is relevant to poin out here that the observation of respondent no.2 that the petitioner had admitted that he had entered the chambers of the Deputy Collector under the influence of liquor is wrong. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner had ever made any such admission. On the other hand, he has specifically denied all the charges in his explanations submitted to the first and the second notice. Respondent No.3, being a subordinate authority of respondent No.2, completed the empty formality of issuing a second notice to the petitioner and passing the formal order of dismissal. Once respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.3 to serve a second notice on the petitioner to show cause why he might not be dismissed from service, respondent No.3 was left with no option but to remove the petitioner from service. Once respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.3 to serve a second notice on the petitioner to show cause why he might not be dismissed from service, respondent No.3 was left with no option but to remove the petitioner from service. Neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.3 had considered the explanations submitted by the petitioner and have passed the orders in a most mechanical manner, on the wrong assumption that the charge of the petitioners being under the influence of liquor when he had entered the chambers of the Deputy Collector had been admitted by him. In fact, the petitioner never admitted any of the charges levelled against him. The impugned order of dismissal has been passed by respondent No.3 under the direction of respondent No.2 without proper application of mind. As stated above, no evidence of any kind was recorded by the Enquiry officer and, therefore, there was no material on record to prove any of the charges levelled against the petitioner. This being so, no penalty whatsoever major or minor could legally be imposed on the petitioner. Respondent No.3 erred in law in dismissing the petitioner from service in absence of any material on record to prove the charges levelled against him. 6. It is rather surprising that respondent No.3, instead of considering whether there was any material on record to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner has dismissed him from service with the observation that he has not produced any solid proof on the basis of which he could be exonerated of the charges. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17.4.1993 of respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Gaya, dismissing the petitioner from service (Annexure 10) is quashed. No order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.