Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the disciplinary proceedings and orders passed in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by which the petitioner was visited with punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect after holding an inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 07.10.1995 (Annex. 10) in terms of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. 3. Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment by finding the charge against the petitioner proved vide order dated 08.08.1997 (Annex. 12). The appeal against which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 18.02.1999 (Annex.13) and review application was also dismissed by the Reviewing Authority on 29.09.2000 (Annex. 14). 4. The material produced in this petition consist of charge sheet served on the petitioner, defence taken by the petitioner and subsequent orders passed by respective authorities noticed hereinabove. Another important document which is on record is the award of Labour Court dated 04.01.1989. 5. As it shall presently be noticed, it is a clear case of non application of mind, even without caring to see the relevant dates, so much so that if the award & charge sheet is read together no foundation for issuing charge sheet is made out. 6. Charge-sheet dated 07.10.95 (Annex. 10) which contains the only charge levelled against the petitioner, reads as under: - ^^1- ;g gS fd mDr Jh vkj- lh- iqjksfgr] lgk;d vfHk;Urk] tu LokLF; vfHk- foHkkx] fMªfyax mi[k.M izFke] ukxkSj esa fnukad 01-01-83 ls 11-10-84 rd lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds in ij inLFkkfir Fks rc Je U;k;ky;] chdkusj ds okn la[;k 2 @ 87 ,oa 3@ 87 ftlesa i{kdkj ØeÓk% Jh dsoy dqekj iq= t;ukjk;.k oekZ] bfUnjk dksyksuh] ukxkSj cuke lgk;d vfHk;Urk fMªyhax gS.M iEi mi[k.M izFke] ukxkSj ,oa Jh eksgEEn gchc iq= Jh eksgEEn vyh cuke lgk;d vfHk;Urk] fMªyhax gS.M iEi mi[k.M] ukxkSj FksA mDr okn esa Je U;k;ky; chdkusj }kjk ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 04-01-89 ds vuqlkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e èkkjk 25 ,Q dh vuqikyuk ugha djus ds dkj.k lEcfU/kr i{kdkjksa dks etnwjh] {kfriwfrZ ,oa vU; [kpksZ dk Hkqxrku djus ds dkj.k jkT; ljdkj dks fujFkZd gkfu gqbZ gS ftlds fy;s vki O;fDrxr :i ls ftEesnkj gSaA ** 7. From the perusal of the charge sheet it is apparent that the petitioner was posted as Assitant Engineer, PHD, Drilling Sub-Division-I, Nagaur from 01.01.1983 to 11.10.1984 only. From the perusal of the charge sheet it is apparent that the petitioner was posted as Assitant Engineer, PHD, Drilling Sub-Division-I, Nagaur from 01.01.1983 to 11.10.1984 only. The charge is in relation to effecting illegal retrenchment of two workmen, disputes in relation to which were subjected to Labour Court vide labour cases no. 2/87 & 3/87. 8. There is no dispute that both the workmen were retrenched simultaneously on the same date. The award dated 04.01.1989 in the case of Mohd. Habib is placed on record, which is Annex. 9. The dispute referred is about the alleged dismissal of the workman on 29.12.1984 i.e. to say more than a month after the petitioner has ceased to hold the office of Assistant Engineer, Drilling Sub-Division-I, Nagaur. Wages upto 28.12.84 having been received by the workman under the order of Payment of Wages Authority under a separate order. Finding of Labour Court is that termination of services of the workman w.e.f. 29.12.1984 was without compliance of the directives of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If the two orders were read together, the foundation of the charge sheet appears to be non-existent, from the order of the disciplinary authority it appears that disciplinary authority assumed the termination to be due to order dated 01.10.1984, which was referred to in the award. However, that was not the order of termination but only calling options from the workmen. This monumental misreading of the award has led to imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority. The order has been passed in mechanical manner without considering specific defence taken by the petitioner and without considering the award which was made foundation for issuing charge sheet against the petitioner. 9. In the circumstances, the order of punishment of the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority having been passed on non-existent material cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 08-08-1997 (Annex. 12) passed by the Disciplinary Authority; 18.02.99 (Annex. 13) of the Appellate Authority & 29.09.2000 (Annex. 14) passed by the Reviewing Authority are all quashed. The petitioner shall get the cost of the petition, which is quantified at Rs. 5000/-