JUDGMENT N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.7.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as contained in An- nexure 6 to the writ petition, whereby punishment of discharge from his service has been awarded against the petitioner and also for quashing of the order dated 28.5.2003 of the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police. Palamau Range, Daltonganj as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition by which the departmental appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of constable in 1979 and since then he served as such at several places of posting. In the year 1998 while he was posted in Palamau District he was served with a charge-sheet as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He was imputed with the charge of misconduct alleging that while he was posted as reserve guard in Patna Police station often-ly he used to take liquour and used to stay at inappropriate places in night. For that reason he was sent back to the Headquarter. These also he managed to avoid duties for five days on sick report and created commotion and disturbance in barrack in drunken condition want only abusing and calling bad names. On 4.11.1998 he entered into the room of Day Officer-Parameshwar Ram and scuffled with him causing bodily injury for which he had to take treatment in Daltonganj Police Hospital. The petitioner thereby misconduct and is unfit for further service in the police force. 3. According to the petitioner, he was so shocked by such frivolous allegations. that he has lost balance of his mind and out of mental agonoy, He could not take part in the departmental enquiry. However, an enquiry was said to have been concluded by the Enquiry Officer in absentia. The Enquiry Officer then submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of that said report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police. Palamau awarded punishment discharging the petitioner and holding that nothing beyond the subsistence allowance is payable to him for the period of his suspension. The Enquiry Officer then submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of that said report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police. Palamau awarded punishment discharging the petitioner and holding that nothing beyond the subsistence allowance is payable to him for the period of his suspension. The petitioner then preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The said two orders have been challenged in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the said two orders on the ground that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are against the law. provision of the Bihar Police Manual and the rules of the natural justice. According to him, even the purported enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and he did not get any opportunity to file and reply against the enquiry report. The learned counsel further submitted that the authorities have not discussed the evidences on the basis of which they have arrived al the said conclusion for removing the petitioner from his service. According to him. in the grab of discharge the petitioner has been illegally dismissed without following the procedure prescribed by law. The appellate authority has also not discharged his duty properly and coloroubly disposed of the appeal. Both the impugned order are cryptic and non-speaking and are violative of principle of natural justice. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner is not so grave which attracts punishment of dismissal and the punishment is unconscionably, severe and disproportionate to the gravity of charge. No convincing reason has been assigned for passing such harsh punishment against the petitioner. 5. Mr. Krishna Shankar learned J.C to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has contented that the enquiry has been properly conducted and on the basis of the materials on records the enquiry officer submitted his report, whereby he has found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the enquiry report and as such he rightly passed the said order discharging the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the enquiry report and as such he rightly passed the said order discharging the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, looking to the serious allegation against the petitioner the punishment is not severe and disproportionate. The learned counsel has further submitted that there are several decisions to support that in case of accepting enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority no in dependent reason in so many words is required to be recorded and as such even if the evidences and other materials are no discussed by the Disciplinary Authority, his order cannot be held to be bad and illegal. According to the learned counsel, both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law and no interference is required by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records I find that enquiry report has not been brought on record either by the petitioner or by the respondents and in absence of the same, it is difficult to say that enquiry officer has thoroughly examined the evidences and material on record and came to the right conclusion on due consideration thereof. It is also not clear from the materials on record that enquiry officer has recommended for severe punishment. Further more, chapter 25 of Bihar Police Manual. Rule 824. provide description of punishment which can be inflicted departmentally. Conspicuously discharge has not been mentioned as a kind of punishment. Discharge has been dealt with in Rule 813 which provide thus; "Discharge includes resignation, retirement on pension or removal from service owing to reduction of force and does not imply misconduct-emphasis supplied. It is clear from the said rules that the discharge is not a sort of punishment and the same is to be understood as dismissal. It is now well settled that discharge or termination by way of punishment must be taken as a dismissal attracting Article 311 of the Constitution. 7. From perusal ofAnnexure-6, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it is, not clear that conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority is based on admissible and cogent evidence and that there was sufficient ground for terminating the petitioner. 7. From perusal ofAnnexure-6, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it is, not clear that conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority is based on admissible and cogent evidence and that there was sufficient ground for terminating the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has not recorded his own independent reasons rather he has relied upon the enquiry report and concluded his order with the said punishment, There is nothing on record to show that there has been sufficient compliance of principle of natural justice in passing the order by the Disciplinary Authority. An-nexure-9 is order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has also not discussed any evidence or materials on record and has passed a cryptic order, not based on any reason. In that view, the orders i.e. passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority suffer from infirmity and are not inconformity with the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same are not sustainable. 8. In the result this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Annexure-6 as well as that of Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition are quashed. 9. Although the impugned orders are quashed owing to the inherent infirmity, yet looking to the nature of the charge and that too against a member of a disciplined police force, the petitioner cannot be given clean chit, for there may be chaos and State of indiscipline if an errant constable is let-off without proper disciplinary action who deserves suitable punishment for his misconduct after following due process of law, This case is thus remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a speaking order after due consideration of evidences and materials on records and in accordance with procedure established by law and the Constitution of India. 10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.