Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board. 2. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha fairly agrees that in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition may be disposed of on the basis of the materials on record which include the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. 3. Mr Mihir Kumar Jha is quite right in this stand because the point raised on behalf of the petitioner arises from the impugned orders and any statements made in the counter affidavit will not change the position. 4. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in the Bihar State Electricity Board and at the material time he was posted in the Electric Supply Section (South) Main Road, Ranchi. He has been awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service in a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges against him. 5. The petitioner was proceeded against on four charges which in substance related to negligence of duty and connivance in theft of energy etc. A departmental enquiry was held into the charges and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 3.11.1999 found and held that only charge no. 1 was partly established and the rest of the charges were not proved against the delinquent. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued to the petitioner a show cause notice dated 13.3.2000 (Annexure-6) giving the reasons for his disagreement with the enquiry report and also proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement for the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply dated 26.4.2000, a copy whereof is at Annexure-7. The disciplinary authority then passed resolution dated 19,1.2001 (Annexure-1) by which the petitioner was given the punishment of compulsory retirement. 6. The petitioner sought to challenge the order passed by the disciplinary authority before this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2422 of 2001 but his writ petition was not entertained on the ground that he had a remedy by way of an appeal before the Board. 7. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The Board affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal by order dated 7.6.2001 (Annexure-2). 8. 7. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The Board affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal by order dated 7.6.2001 (Annexure-2). 8. This writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the Board in its capacity as the Appellate authority. 9. Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha submitted that the order of punishment dated 19.1.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority was simply a reproduction of the second show cause notice and the order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the Board on the petitioners appeal was similarly a reproduction of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel submitted that the order of punishment being a reproduction of the second show cause notice it was plain and clear that the disciplinary authority had already made up his mind about the punishment to be awarded to the petitioner and the order was passed without any application of mind and without taking into consideration his show cause in reply to the notice issued to him. Similarly the appellate authority by reproducing the order passed by the disciplinary authority only revealed a closed mind and it was evident that the petitioners appeal was rejected mechanically and without any consideration. 10. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board stated that the officials of the Board seemed to have a regrettable and curious predilection for writing their orders in a set format in which each paragraph started with "Whereas" and ended at "And". Learned counsel submitted that due to the use of the same format the two orders appeared indentical but in fact it was not so. He stated that though it was true that the first two and half pages of the order passed by the Board appeared to be quite identical to the order passed by the disciplinary authority, that part of the "order" was in reality the agenda not put up before the Board. The Boards decision was in the concluding paragraph of that order which started with "And whereas, after careful consideration of the above appeal by Sri Singh" and ended at "Accordingly his appeal dated 17.3.2001 is rejected". This portion according to Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha was the decision by the Board and this was quite independent of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 11. This portion according to Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha was the decision by the Board and this was quite independent of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 11. Even if the submission of Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha is to be accepted it will be difficult to sustain the punishment awarded to the petitioner at the stage of the disciplinary authority itself. Even Mr. Jha was unable to deny that the order of punishment dated 19.1.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority was almost a complete reproduction of the second show cause notice issued by him; the only diference was in the concluding lines. In the second show cause notice the petitioner was asked to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be awarded to him and in the punishment order it was stated that it was decided to avvard the above proposed punishment upon Shri Singh. 12. This court may not go to the extent of holding that there was no application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority and that his mind was already set on awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement to the reproduction of the second show cause notice it is bound to give such an impression, moreso to the concerned employee and to a layman. 13. It has been observed innumerable times that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. The manner in which the punishment order is passed in this case clearly violates this time-honoured judicial maxim. This court is therefore constrained to interfere in this matter and to set aside the punishment order dated 19.1.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate order therefore automatically falls to the ground. 14. Having regard to the regrets expressed by Mr. M.K. Jha over the manner in which the Board officials write their order, this court would like to make it clear that it is not necessary to pass orders in any set format in which each paragraph would start with "Whereas" and end at "And". The officers are required to pass orders in simple language expressing their intent and meaning clearly, precisely and concisely; all that is required in an order is that it should be clearly understood by an average literate person and by the court; it should not be ambiguous and capable of more than one meaning. 15. The officers are required to pass orders in simple language expressing their intent and meaning clearly, precisely and concisely; all that is required in an order is that it should be clearly understood by an average literate person and by the court; it should not be ambiguous and capable of more than one meaning. 15. The punishment order being set aside the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the show cause filed by the petitioner. It is expected that a final order will be passed by the disciplinary authority within a month from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner has any grievance against that order he will be at liberty to file appeal before the Board, in accordance with the rules. 16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed subject to the aforesaid observations and directions.