Judgment 1. On an oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the hearing of the case is preponed for today. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration challenging the punishment order dated December 2,2000 whereby his services were terminated. He also challenged the appellate order dated September 3,2001 whereby his departmental appeal against the punishment order was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged on the ground that they were illegal, bad and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence 2. Available on the record, held that the appellate order dated september 3, 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority was bad and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed to the limited extent that the aforesaid appellate order was set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to redecide the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court re-examined the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that even the punishment order dated December 2, 2000 was illegal and bad. The learned First Appellate Court, however, granted a liberty to the defendants to start fresh proceedings from the stage of passing of the punishment order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. 4. I have heard Shri R. S. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case. Shri R. S. Sharma, has primarily argued that the Appellate court should not have granted a fresh opportunity to the department to re-start the proceedings. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention, I do not find any justification to interfere in the matter. 5. The learned First Appellate Court has found it is a fact that the punishment order had been passed by the punishing authority without applying its mind and the various pleas raised by the plaintiff, in his reply to the show cause notice, had not been dealt with. In these circumstances, it was thought appropriate to quash the aforesaid order and grant a liberty to the punishing authority to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, it was thought appropriate to quash the aforesaid order and grant a liberty to the punishing authority to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. The aforesaid direction/liberty granted by the learned First Appellate court cannot be held to be erroneous under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.