ORDER 4.3.2004 — Though this matter was listed today for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner calls in question, the impugned order of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding, giving him compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner was serving as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at Nirakarpur Electrical Section in the district of Khurda, when a departmental proceeding was initiated on 13.11.1997 on the allegation of showing undue favour to a consumer in giving service connection without a meter, collection of unauthorised money from consumers for personal gains at the cost of the Company, negligence in duty, disobedience of orders of higher authorities and misconduct. The proceedings continued, charges were served, petitioner submitted his explanation denying all charges. An enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted on 27.7.2000 and report was submitted, holding him guilty of Charge Nos. 4, 6, 8 and the charge regarding negligence in duty, according to the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was rightly initiated by the Director under Annexure-1 and as such, the Disciplinary Authority as per service regulation was the Director and the Appellate Authority was the Managing Direc¬tor. But however, the Managing Director, who is the Appellate Authority under the service regulation issued the second show cause inviting explanation under Annexure-5, to which the peti¬tioner submitted his show cause praying inter alia to exonerate him from the charges. However, the opposite party by order dated 29.1.2001 passed an order of compulsory retirement from service, a copy of which is Annexure - 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Executor Officer, CESCO not being the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The Director being the Disciplinary Author¬ity, the order passed by the opposite party is ultra vires inas¬much as no delegation of power to the Chief Executive Officer so far as Disciplinary Authority is concerned has been made author¬ising him to deal with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It appears that during the pendency of the writ application, the petitioner filed an appeal before the opposite party No.1, but the same has been rejected by order dated 25.9.2002, a copy of which is Annexure-9. It appears that during the pendency of the writ application, the petitioner filed an appeal before the opposite party No.1, but the same has been rejected by order dated 25.9.2002, a copy of which is Annexure-9. Opposite parties 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit while refuting the allegation of the petitioner at sub-para (ii) of Paragraph 7 have stated that though the Rules of the Company provide for exercising disciplinary powers by any functional Director or the Director (HR) in the absence of the said authorities, it was only the Managing Director, who was at the relevant time empowered to take such disciplinary measures against the employees. It has further been stated that so far as the provision for appeal as the original appellate authority has issued the second show cause notice, this Court in appreciating such circumstances may direct the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Board of Director, who will function as the appellate authority in that case. It appears that the petitioner had filed the appeal before the Chief Executive Officer on 3.8.2002 and by order dated 25.9.2002, the same has been rejected in a cryptic order only saying that the appeal merits no consideration. A reading of the order dated 25.9.2002, copy of which has been annexed to the counter as Annexure- B/1 and his additional affi¬davit as Annexure-9, makes it clear that the appeal of the peti¬tioner has not been considered on merits and no discussion what¬soever has been made and no reasons assigned for rejection of the appeal. If an aggrieved employee files an appeal as against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to consider the points raised and take a decision in the matter. A bald order of rejection of the appeal cannot be sustained in law. In such view of the matter, without going into the points of law raised in this writ application, in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cryptic order of the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner’s appeal is not sustainable in law and has to be quashed. Accord¬ingly, the order dated 25.9.2002 is quashed. Accord¬ingly, the order dated 25.9.2002 is quashed. The second show cause notice has been issued by the Managing Director and ul¬timately the order of compulsory retirement having been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, CESCO, the appeal has to be consid¬ered by the Board of Management as rightly suggested by the opp.parties 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised in the writ petition, we direct that in the event the petitioner files an appeal before the Board of Directors as against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.9.2001, the Board shall consider the same in accordance with law in its proper perspective including the question of jurisdiction, which may be raised by the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order, if necessary, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from the date of presentation of the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.