JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.4.1993 (Annx. 7) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police - the Disciplinary Authority, withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the petitioner and the Appellate Order dated 15.11.1994 (Annx. 11) passed by Inspector General of Police, affirming the order of punishment. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Pratap Ram Mali, a Pakistani national, was residing in Jodhpur and he filed an application seeking permission for permanent residence in Jodhpur. A police inquiry was held and nothing incriminating was found against him. However, application remained pending. He applied for citizenship of India and again Police inquiry was held. Even at that stage, no incriminating information against him was furnished. During pendency of his application, he received information that his mother was ill in Pakistan, so he filed an application for permission to go back to Pakistan. Petitioner was directed to furnish report on that application within a period of 3 days. Petitioner conducted inquiry and submitted report on the next day, pointing out that nothing adverse has been found or came to his knowledge against said Pratap Ram Mali and applicant may be permitted to go back. 3. On the said report, said Pratap Ram Mali was allowed to go but while going back, he was interrogated and detained for several days wherein he made certain allegations against the petitioner that he got the report in his favour after paying some illegation gratification. A preliminary inquiry was held on that charge but nothing came out. Ultimately, a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was issued to the petitioner, alleging that he concluded the inquiry within a day instead of 3 days and he failed to mention that said Pratap Ram Mali was having partnership with one Bihari Lal, who had been detained by Pakistani Police and thus, he held the inquiry negligently. 4. The petitioner submitted reply to said charge-sheet explaining position that nothing came to his knowledge regarding alleged partnership of Pratap Ram Mali and Bihari Lal. More so, two preliminary inquiries have already been held against said Pratap Ram Mali and that petitioner conducted the inquiry honestly and sincerely and submitted report. 5. 4. The petitioner submitted reply to said charge-sheet explaining position that nothing came to his knowledge regarding alleged partnership of Pratap Ram Mali and Bihari Lal. More so, two preliminary inquiries have already been held against said Pratap Ram Mali and that petitioner conducted the inquiry honestly and sincerely and submitted report. 5. The Disciplinary Authority considered petitioner's representation/reply to the charge-sheet and came to conclusion that petitioner was guilty of proceeding in haste and has been negligent in submitting the report. Thus, the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon him and some amount of suspension was also withheld by order dated 23.4.1993. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.4.1993 (Annx. 7), petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.11.1994 (Annx. 11). The order of the Appellate Authority is nothing but narration of facts and averments submitted by the petitioner-appellant and it is only last paragraph wherein the Appellate Authority has stated that there was no ground to interfere with the punishment impugned, imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In fact, the Appellate Authority was supposed to apply his mind and to give a speaking and reasoned order, as for what reasons he was agreeing with the Disciplinary Authority. 7. Be that as it may, the charge of proceeding in haste seems to be of no consequence as in such a case, submitting report at a shorter period requires commendation but the allegation of negligence, that he failed to get all the information regarding said Pratap Ram Mali, seems to be proved against the petitioner. Thus, petitioner, at the most, can be held guilty of negligence. Further, Shri Anand Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the State, has been fair enough to submit that though petitioner may be negligent in submitting the report but his negligence has not adversely affected the administration. 8. Thus, in view of the above, the punishment imposed on the petitioner appears, to be disproportionate and considering the fact that petitioner has retired long back and in the fitness of circumstances, it is desirable that said punishment is modified and substituted such that petitioner may be warned for being negligent in this case. 9. Thus, in view of the above, petition partly succeeds. The punishment imposed upon petitioner vide impugned Order Annx. 9. Thus, in view of the above, petition partly succeeds. The punishment imposed upon petitioner vide impugned Order Annx. 7 dated 23.4.1993 and affirmed by appellate order dated 15.11.1994 is modified as stated herein above. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.Writ petition partly allowed. *******