Judgment 1. By the present application the petitioner, who was posted as Circle Officer in Bikramganj Circle, has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority awarding the punishment of dismissal of service along with the appellate order, as contained in Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier also the petitioner had moved this Court and as this court had found that out of four charges the enquiring officer has found that three of them have not been proved, as such, when the disciplinary authority was coming to a different conclusion, he should have at least, supplied the enquiry report to the petitioner. In absence of the enquiry report and opportunity of second show cause being not afforded to the petitioner, the order of the disciplinary authority was quashed. By the order of the Court the said enquiry report was served on the petitioner in court itself and he was directed of file a second show cause. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner filed second show cause before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after considering the said show cause and relevant documents, maintained its earlier order and assigned reasons for the same. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. The said order has been brought on the record by way of supplementary-affidavit and it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a non-speaking order. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate-General appearing on behalf of State had stated that as the said order was only a communication to the petitioner as such, he was granted time to bring the original order on the record. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed enclosing thereto Annexure-3, which is said to be the order of the appellate authority. 5. I have perused the same. Paragraph 4 of the said order goes to show that as far as charge no.1 is concerned, the enquiring officer should have gone into details and should have made a detailed enquiry but as he had not made the same, he found such charge not proved. 6. 5. I have perused the same. Paragraph 4 of the said order goes to show that as far as charge no.1 is concerned, the enquiring officer should have gone into details and should have made a detailed enquiry but as he had not made the same, he found such charge not proved. 6. As the appellate authority has interferred into the matter afresh and after considering all the documents, he has come to the conclusion that the said charge regarding forged signature of late Gopal Prasad upadhyaya stood proved, to my mind the appellate authority should have only looked into the order of the disciplinary authority and he should have come to his conclusion whether the same has been passed in accordance with law or not and he was not supposed to make a further enquiry into the matter. If fresh materials were being considered by the appellate authority an opportunity of show cause should have again been afforded to the petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances stated above, Annexure-1 to the supplementary-affidavit and the order as contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit are quashed and the matter is again remitted back to the appellate authority. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a copy of the present order before the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from today and the appellate authority after perusing the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order. 9. In the result, this to the extent indicated above.