JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the district order No. 561/ 2003 dated 28.5.2003 whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from the service and also the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the appellate authority, DIG (CID), Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioners departmental appeal was dismissed by a laconic order. The said order was passed in a departmental proceeding, initiated on the basis of the charge sheet served on the petitioner containing three articles of charges, which has been annexed as Annexure-2. The petitioner was imputed with the charges, that on 26.7.2001 he was deputed as a driver of a Gypsy with CID Special Team but when the team was about to move he was not found on duty and the team had to travel to Khunti by bus; that on 27.7.2001 the petitioner was found in the drunken condition and that on 19.9.2001 medical check up was conducted and the petitioner was found under influence of intoxication and thereby he had misconducted. Against the said charge sheet petitioner had filed his reply refuting the charges and stating, inter alia, that on 26.7.2001 he was with the CID team and was on duty but as the Gypsy was short of fuel he was sent to Rambilash Petrol Pump for fetching adequate fuel. When he returned he did not find anybody in the premises of the Senior Superintendent Office and under such circumstances he parked the Gypsy in front of the office of the Crime Investigation Department and next day as per the order of the DSP he handed over the key of the Gypsy to the DSP, Sri K.B. Yadav, on his order. It was further stated by him that on 19.9.2001 he was examined by the doctor, but even the doctor found him well under control. In support of the same the petitioner has annexed the report of the doctor as a part of his show cause reply which is not disputed by the respondents. I found the report on the record which reads that the petitioner was in mild alcoholic state but he can control himself very well. 2. From the records it appears that though the petitioner has specifically stated that he had acted on the verbal orders of his superior Mr. I found the report on the record which reads that the petitioner was in mild alcoholic state but he can control himself very well. 2. From the records it appears that though the petitioner has specifically stated that he had acted on the verbal orders of his superior Mr. K.B. Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, but to falsify the same he was not called as a witness by the department. It appears from the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Anriexure-6 that without taking into consideration the nature of the charge and the nature of the evidences brought on record the order of dismissal from service was passed. The order is not speaking and does not conform to the requirement of the rule of fair play and natural justice. 3. Against the said order of punishment the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the DIG (CID), Jharkhand. according to him, raising several grounds for assailing the order of disciplinary authority, on which the final order was passed by the appellate authority as contained in Annexure-8, which is dated 22.7.2004. From its perusal it appears that the appellate authority without duly considering the grounds and the materials on record passed a ciyptic order dismissing the appeal in most perfunctory way. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in opposition to the grounds taken in the writ application, by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit both the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have been supported as sound and valid. In order to fortify the contention some documents have also been annexed with the counter affidavit. From perusal of the said documents as contained in Annexures-A to E it appears that earlier also the petitioner had been awarded punishment(s) for his lapses in duty. However, it is evident from the orders of punishment that for similar type of charges the petitioner was awarded light punishments. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is no conformity in the orders of the respondents with regard to the punishment(s) awarded to the petitioner. Earlier for similar type of charges he had been awarded petty punishments and there is no justification for awarding ultimate punishment of dismissal this time, that too without recording any special reason for the same. Earlier for similar type of charges he had been awarded petty punishments and there is no justification for awarding ultimate punishment of dismissal this time, that too without recording any special reason for the same. According to the learned counsel, the quantum of punishment this time does not commensurate with the charge and it is severe and disproportionate. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that earlier also the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and punishments were awarded to him and was given chance to improve, but he did not improve himself and this time he does not deserve any sympathetic consideration and in that view of the matter the punishment is proper and is not severe. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment reported in 2003 (4) JCR 681 (Jhr) : 2003 (4) JLJR 199 , Shiv Sahay Singh v. State of Jharkhand and others, in which it has been held on the facts of that case that the punishment was not severe and not shocking and disproportionate. In that case the charge was disobedience of the orders of the authorities by a driver who was employed to carry the dead body of another driver who had died and for the said disobedience he was proceeded against and was awarded punishment of forfeiture of increment of six months which is equivalent to one black mark. 7. Having considered the materials on record and submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that in the instant case, for the charge mainly of disobedience the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from the service. The said decision cited on behalf of the respondent rather supports the petitioners ground that in the instant case the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. No special reason has been recorded for awarding punishment of dismissal, this time, whereas in almost similar circumstances lighter punishments were awarded earlier. Both the orders under challenge are cryptic and nonspeaking. Though I find that the impugned orders are not sound and in conformity with the rule of natural justice, yet looking to the petitioners antecedent, that this is to the first time when the petitioner has been charged for the lapses in his duty he can not be fully exonerated from the charges by this Court. Though I find that the impugned orders are not sound and in conformity with the rule of natural justice, yet looking to the petitioners antecedent, that this is to the first time when the petitioner has been charged for the lapses in his duty he can not be fully exonerated from the charges by this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment awarded to him appears to be severe and disproportionate and the same requires reconsideration by the appropriate authorities. 8. In the circumstances aforesaid, the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-6 and the order of appellate authority as contained in Annexure-8, are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh and speaking order in accordance with law. 9. This writ application is, thus, allowed subject to the above observations. However there will be no order as to costs.