JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order impugned dated 27-9-2001 (Annexure-16) passed by His Excellency the Governor rejecting the petitioner's review petition filed against the order dated 10-8-1998 as time barred, so also the order passed by Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur dated 10-8-1998 (Annexure-9) whereby the petitioner was removed from service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant in the Ground Water Department after due selection through R.P.S.C. and he joined the duties on 22-8-1985. Initially the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur and worked till April, 1986 then he was transferred to Kota Division at Kota. He worked independently as Geo-Physicist for Electrical Resistivity survey in four districts i.e. Kota, Jhalawar, Sawai Madhopur and Tonk to explore point of tube well for water supply scheme. In the year 1987, the petitioner became eligible for promotion as Jr. Geo Physicist but he was transferred in the year 1989 from Kota to Nagpur. Thereafter, in the year 1991 when a post of Technical Assistant became available then so many requests were made to the Chief Engineer but, he was not given posting at Kota. The Chief Engineer kept the post vacant for three years ignoring the prayer of the petitioner to post him at Kota. In the year 1992, the petitioner was transferred again to Pali but at Pali no work was allotted and petitioner continued there without any work because he was expert in Geo-Physicist. In the year 1992, due to harassment of the respondents, he suffered so many diseases and due to medical reasons he remained on medical leave for three years. Thereafter when he went to Pali to join the duties and produced all the medical certificates, which were earlier sent through post from time to time to the Chief Engineer but Senior Hydro-Geologist Mr. Rajendra Sharma kept those medical certificates with him and accepted the joining but did not give any receipt and refused the petitioner to sign in the attendance register after 24-4-1996. 3. The petitioner was informed at Pali that some enquiries are lying pending therefore after completion of enquiries he will be allowed to join duties, so also, no salary was paid to him and was threatened that his services will be terminated. 4. 3. The petitioner was informed at Pali that some enquiries are lying pending therefore after completion of enquiries he will be allowed to join duties, so also, no salary was paid to him and was threatened that his services will be terminated. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in all two charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 by the respondent Department. The first charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules for the alleged misconduct on 14-6-1995 vide Annexure-1 and second charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1997 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on 12-2-1997. It is specifically stated by the petitioner that the respondents have proceeded to hold an enquiry in pursuance of the first charge-sheet dated 14-6-1995 in which four charges were levelled against the petitioner that he remained willfully absent from duties without proper intimation in the year 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. Further, it was alleged that he has violated the provisions of GF and AF Rules and disobeyed the orders of the superiors. 5. The petitioner filed his reply to the said charge-sheet on 22-2-1997 and refuted all the charges levelled against trim, so also submitted a list of witnesses for his defence in the enquiry. In reply, it is stated that he remained continuously ill due to heart disease for more than, three to four years and he was taking heart treatment, so also to prove the contention of the medical treatment he has submitted medical certificates and fitness certificates along with his joining but the same were not considered by the authorities and deliberately in order to restrain the petitioner from joining they issued charge sheet and initiated the departmental enquiry. 6. It is stated in writ petition that copies of medical certificates will be kept ready for perusal of Court at the time of arguments. With regard to charge Nos. 3 and 4, it is submitted that outstanding amount which he has been said to be due against the petitioner is absolutely incorrect as he has undertaken advance TA/DA which has to be adjusted as against the actual amount spent by the petitioner. 7. With regard to charge Nos. 3 and 4, it is submitted that outstanding amount which he has been said to be due against the petitioner is absolutely incorrect as he has undertaken advance TA/DA which has to be adjusted as against the actual amount spent by the petitioner. 7. In the enquiry so conducted after appointment of Enquiry Officer on 15-7-1997, a Presenting Officer to prove the department's case was also appointed vide order dated 20-8-1997 and the petitioner continuously attended the enquiry, which is clear from the certificate dated 6-10-1997, which is produced on record as Annexure-6. It is specifically pointed out by the petitioner that vide Annexure-4, Mr. D.P. Agarwal, Superintending Engineer, Ground Water Scientist, Ground Water Department, Jaipur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Later on from time to time, the place of enquiry was changed therefore, the petitioner could not appear in the enquiry on 17 16-1997 and 28-10 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a communication dated 15-12-1997 that he shall not be able to appear at the place of enquiry at Jaipur because there has been a curfew imposed in the Jaipur city but enquiry Officer did not consider the prayer of the petitioner and held ex parte enquiry against the petitioner. After submitting the enquiry report, by the Enquiry Officer, a notice to show cause was given to the petitioner on 9-6-1998 along with copy of the enquiry report, which has been placed on record as Annexure-7. 8. After receiving charge-sheet reply to the show cause notice vide communication dated 1-7-1998 Annexure-8 was submitted by the petitioner but without considering the petitioner's reply, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold ex parte enquiry against the Petitioner. Thereafter, upon said enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order whereby the petitioner was penalised with the penalty of removal from service along with order of recovery of Rs. 5,484/- along with interest @ 12%, The petitioner has placed on record the said order of penalty dated 10-7-1998 as Annexure-9. 9. As per petitioner, an appeal was preferred by him against the said order on 22-8-1998 vide Annexure-10 but no decision was communicated by the respondents on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the removal order, the petitioner's contention is that after filing appeal he received a communication dated 30-11-1998 by which he was informed that he shall appear before the Enquiry Officer on 17-12-1998. When petitioner received the said communication, then, he appeared before Enquiry officer with the bonafide impression that his appeal has been considered by the department and there had been an order of de novo enquiry but later on a communication was received by the petitioner dated 30-9-1999, which is Internal communication in between the Enquiry Officer and Chief Engineer, Ground Water department, Jodhpur in which it was observed by the Enquiry Officer that Shri R. K. Bhola (petitioner) had already been removed from the service vide order dated 10-8-1998, keeping in view this important order, the undersigned has sought guidance from higher authority whether the said departmental enquiry should be continued or completed or not, kindly arrange to convey. 10. When this order was received by the petitioner, then it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the communication Annexure-11 dated 30-11-1998 was in connection with the second charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 12-2-1997. Meaning thereby, the appeal of the petitioner was not decided, therefore, he preferred a review petition, to His Excellency; Governor of Rajasthan under the provisions of Rules of 1958 on 1-8-2001 but in connection with the review petition filed by the petitioner he received a communication from the Secretary to Hon'ble Governor on 12-9-2001, communicating the petitioner that his review petition Is time barred. Therefore, it is hereby rejected. The case of the petitioner is that against the removal order of the petitioner, first of all appeal filed by the, petitioner was not decided by the respondent so also the review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected as time barred. 11. In this writ petition, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that in second charge-sheet which is issued to the petitioner enquiry was initiated under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules but vide Annexure-14 dated 18-3-2000, the Chief Engineer, G.W.D. has dropped the enquiry on the ground that in another charge-sheet issued to the petitioner he has already been removed from service vide order dated 10-8-1998. Meaning thereby, vide Annexure-14 the second charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was ordered to be closed as petitioner was already removed from service, therefore, now in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the removal order dated 10-8-1998, so also the order of rejection of the review petition by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan dated 27-9-2001 (Annexure-16). For the same, the petitioner has raised following grounds. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that first of all the order of removal dated 10-8-1998 deserves to be quashed on the ground that it is totally unreasoned order and without considering the reply given by the petitioner although it is observed in the order dated 10-8-1998 that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner but in fact this assertion is totally false, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that a bare perusal of order impugned dated 10-8-1998 (Annexure-9) will reveal that there is no consideration, discussion and reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority for removing the petitioner from service. It is only observed that the Enquiry Officer has found that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Meaning thereby, without application of mind, the Disciplinary Authority has passed impugned order while observing that the Enquiry Officer has found that, all the four charges have been proved by the Department. It is argued that the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer is totally without application of mind which is evident from the fact that in the order only one line has been written that all the charges levelled against the delinquent have been found to be proved, therefore, it is proved that order impugned is illegal and unconstitutional. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by Hon'ble AIR 1990 SC 1984 S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India) submitted that as per Constitution Bench Judgment, the decision given by the administrative authorities must contain reason and it is the duty of the judicial or quasi judicial authorities to record reasons except in cases where requirement is dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. Further, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that as per natural justice, the administrative action must be supported by reasons, if not then such type of action is required to be declared illegal and in contravention of principles of natural justice. 15. Further, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that as per natural justice, the administrative action must be supported by reasons, if not then such type of action is required to be declared illegal and in contravention of principles of natural justice. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules vide Annexure-1 dated 14-6-1995 and Annexure-2 dated 12-2-1997 but departmental enquiry in pursuance of Annexure-2 was ordered to be closed in view of the fact that removal order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 10-8-1998. In the order dated 10-8-1998 passed in pursuance of charge-sheet dated 14-6-1995, it is observed that no written submission has been filed by the delinquent. Therefore, while accepting the enquiry report, delinquent is hereby removed from service. Such type of unreasoned order which is passed without application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and against the principles of natural justice because Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment of S.N. Mukherjee's case (supra) that order must be reasoned order and in absence of any reason in the order, it must be held that the said order is in contravention of principles of natural justice. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he remained absent from duty but submitted all the medical certificates for perusal and Consideration at the time of filing application for joining at Pali, so also due to change of place of enquiry he was not in position to attend the enquiry because he was not allowed to join duties as such no salary was paid to the petitioner, therefore, in absence of financial assistance or salary, it was not possible for him to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was under obligation to consider all the medical certificates at the time of filing application for joining but all those medical certificates were ignored and the petitioner has been removed from service, which is totally illegal. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner was also not decided by the respondents. Likewise the review petition was dismissed at time barred. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner was also not decided by the respondents. Likewise the review petition was dismissed at time barred. Meaning thereby the petitioner remained remedy-less, therefore, after loosing battle before the respondents, the present writ petition has been preferred on the ground that all the proceedings under taken against the petitioner is not based upon the cogent reasons, so also, the order of removal is totally illegal and in contravention of basic principles of law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.8.1998 may kindly be quashed and respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. 18. In reply to the writ petition, it is contended by the respondents that petitioner has failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and charge of willful absence from duty was proved by the department before the Enquiry Officer, by leading proper evidence. It is also one of the important fact that petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Office therefore, he has proceeded to hold ex parte enquiry and arrived at the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved by the department and while concluding enquiry , the Enquiry Officer, sent the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority in which it is observed by the Enquiry Officer that all the charges leveled against the delinquent have been proved by the department and after receiving the said enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was given an opportunity to file his written submissions while sending the copy of the enquiry report to him but he has failed of file any submissions, therefore, now the petitioner cannot raise voice that he was not given any opportunity of hearing to defend his case. The Disciplinary Authority while accepting the enquiry report in toto penalised the petitioner with penalty of removal from service which does not require any interference by this Court because order is perfectly in accordance with law. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in this case, the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that he remained absent from duty and he did not submit medical certificate either before the respondent department and Enquiry Officer now he is raising voice that he has produced medical certificates which were not considered by the department but in fact this assertion in totally false. The petitioner did not produce any medical certificates to prove that he remained absent from duty due to illness. The respondent Department has rightly passed an order for removal of the petitioner in which there is no error. Therefore, not interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required as the respondents have conducted the enquiry in proper manner and after following the procedure of enquiry provided under the Rules of 1958. 20. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing but he defied the same, which is clear from the proceedings itself. The petitioner did not submit any certificates either before the department or before the Enquiry Officer till final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he has filed appeal against the order, which he has placed on record as Annexure-10 will reveal that it is not an appeal but it is a representation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner for filing appeal and not deciding the same by the respondents is totally denied. In fact, no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of removal though he has filed review petition before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan but the same was rejected for the reasons that it was time barred. In this view of the matter, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner, which requires any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More over, the petitioner was rightly removed from service for the alleged misconduct of willful absence from duty so also for violation of GF & AF Rules and such an order which is passed after following the rules does not require any interference by this Court. Hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. 21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties so also perused the entire pleading of the case and perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was removed from service and in this writ petition, the validity of order impugned Annexure-9 dated 10-8-1998 is under challenge, therefore, for adjudicating the controversy first of all order of removal is required to be perused. 22. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was removed from service and in this writ petition, the validity of order impugned Annexure-9 dated 10-8-1998 is under challenge, therefore, for adjudicating the controversy first of all order of removal is required to be perused. Annexure-9 dated 10-8-1998 is as follows:- ^ ^ Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk] rduhdh lgk;d ( Hkw&HkkSfrd&fon ) dk;kZy; ofj"B Hkw&ty oSKkfud] Hkw&ty foHkkx ikyh dks fuEu vkjksiksa ij eheksa la[;k 772 fnukad 12-02-1997 rkfey djok;k x;kA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk rduhdh lgk;d ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ij tkap gsrq tkap vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh xbZA tkap vf/kdkj us tkap izfronsu i= dzaekd 19 fnukad 05-05-1998 ls izLrqr fd;k x;kA tkap vf/kdkjh ls izzkIr vkosnu dk v/;;u djus ds i'pkr~ mDr izfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq;s tkap fjiksVZ ij fyf[kr vfHkdFku nsus gsrq i= dzekad 1509 fnukad 09-06-1998 fn;k x;kA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk] rduhdh lgk;d ( Hkw&HkkSfrd fon ) us i= fnukad 28-06-1998 ls tkap fjiksVZ ij vfHkdFku nsus gsrq 10 fnol dk le; pkgkA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk dh izfrmRrj nsus gsrq le; nsus ds i'pkr~ vkt fnu rd fyf[kr vfHkdFku izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk ij fuEu vkjksi gS& vkjksi la[;k&1 fnukad 20-08-1991 ls 31-12-1991 rd] 13-01-1992 ls 31-01-1992 rd] 08-02- 1992 ls 25 -07-1992 rd] 27-07-1992 ls 23-04-1996 o 27-04-1996 ls fujUrj LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk rduhdh lgk;d tkap vf/kdkjh dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gq;sA tkap vf/kdkjh us vfHkys[kksa ls ik;k fd Jh Hkksyk mijksDr of.kZr vof/k esa LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgs rFkk fnukad 27-04-1996 ls jkT; dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSaA vkjksi la[;k&2 ofj"B Hkwty oSKkfud] Hkwty foHkkx ikyh ds funsZ'k fd og fljksgh ftys dk ft;ksfQftdy losZ dj y{; iw.kZ djs] ijUrq muds }kjk ft;kfQftdy losZ dk dk;Z ugha fd;kA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk] rduhdh lgk;d tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gq;sA Jh Hkksyk ds fo:) ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ xbZ vkSj bl vkjksi dks Hkh fl) ik;kA vkjksi la[;k&3 vkfMV vof/k 9@92 ls 4@93 ds vuqlkj Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk us Hkqxrku losru vodk'k dh rjg ysus o vf/kd Hkqxrku dh vof/k] vfxze osru ;k=k HkRrk ,oa vukt vfxze dh dze'k% :i;s 2624@& :i;s 1160@& :i;s 800@& :i;s 900@& dqy :0 5484@& izkIr fd;kA ;g jkf'k Jh Hkksyk us tek ugha djokbZ gSA Jh Hkksyk ij vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi fl) ik;k x;kA vkjksi la[;k&4 Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk ls LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds lEcU/k es ofj"B Hkwty oSKkfud] ikyh us Li"Vhdj.k muds dk;Z xzg.k frfFk fnukad 24-04-1996 iwNk rFkk jksx izek.k i= Hkh ekaxs x;sA Jh Hkksyk us LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds lEcU/k esa u rks Li"Vhdj.k fn;k vkSj u gh dksbZ jksx izek.k i= gh izLrqr fd;k vkSj os fcuk vuqefr dk;kZy; esa fnukad 27-04-1996 ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSaA Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk ij yxk;s x;s mijksDr pkjksa vkjksi fl) ik;sA fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ lhlh ,.M , fu;eksa ds iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk] rd lgk;d Hkw&HkkSfrd fon dks fuEu naM ls nafMr djus ds vkns'k nsrs gS& 1- LosPNk ls jkT; dk;Z ls vuqifLFkfr jgus ds vkjksi fl) gksus ds dkj.k Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk dks jkT; lsok ls lsokeqDr fd;k tkrk gSA 2- LosPNk ls vuqifLFkfr vof/k;ksa dks voSrfud vodk'k Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 3- jktdh; jkf'k :i;s 5484@& Iyl 12 izfr'kr C;kt dh nj ls olwyh Jh vkj0ds0 Hkksyk ds cdk;k DysEl esa ls dh tkdj jkT; dks"k esa tek djokbZ tkosA ** 23. Upon scanning the above impugned order, it is abundantly clear that there is no discussion with regard to the enquiry so conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The only assertion has been made with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The only observation has been made in each of the charge that Enquiry officer has found charge to be proved. Further, it is observed in the order that Shri R.K. Bhola in spite of granting time to file reply has not filed his written submission to the enquiry report which is supplied to him. In my opinion, this assertion is not correct in view of the fact that in para No. 10 of the writ petition, the following assertion has been made by the petitioner:- "10. That in the enquiry, 4 charges were proved against him. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice vide communication dated 1-7-1998, a copy whereof is being produced herewith and marked as Annexure-8." 24. In reply to para No. 10 of the writ petition, the following reply has been given by the respondents:- "10. That in reply to the contents of this paragraph the answering respondents most humbly and respectfully submit that the averments made in it by the petitioner are admitted to the extent that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the Annexure-7 vide Annexure-8 dated 1-7-98 to the writ petition." 25. Upon perusal of the assertion made in para No. 10 of the writ petition and in para No. 10 of the reply of the said para, it is crystal clear that the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner has filed reply to enquiry report (Annexure-7) vide reply (Annexure-8). In this view of the matter, obviously observation made in the removal order that, no reply was filed after receiving enquiry report seems to be false. If Disciplinary Authority has made a false assertion in the order and did not apply its mind then obviously it is very serious matter because the Disciplinary Authority at the time of deciding fate of employee must have to take into consideration material produced by the delinquent before him. If Disciplinary Authority has made a false assertion in the order and did not apply its mind then obviously it is very serious matter because the Disciplinary Authority at the time of deciding fate of employee must have to take into consideration material produced by the delinquent before him. In this case being the Disciplinary Authority the Chief Engineer was adjudicator of the enquiry and he was required to apply its mind and he was under obligation to make correct assertion in the order impugned but accordingly to facts, a false assertion has been made by the Displinary Authority while passing order of removal from service against the petitioner.26. In this view of the matter, on the hand in the order impugned dated 10-8-1998, it is observed by the Disciplinary Authority that in spite of granting time to file reply to show cause notice sent along with the enquiry report, no reply has been filed whereas upon assertion made by the petitioner in para No. 10 of the writ petition, it is replied in the Court on affidavit that reply was given by the petitioner to the show cause notice sent by the Disciplinary Authority before passing final order. In my opinion, this fact itself proves that somehow department was firm to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, even without considering the reply of the petitioner while making false assertion in the impugned order, the petitioner was removed from service, therefore, such type of order does not stand before eye of law at the time of judicial scrutiny.27. I have perused the enquiry report also. I am unable to understand how the Enquiry Officer has given finding without recording evidence of prosecution. In the enquiry report, it is observed by the Enquiry Officer that in all a list of three witnesses was produced by the department to prove charge against the petitioner, but out of three witnesses namely Shri P.C. Rai, Shri K.S. Srivastava and Shri Rajendra Sharma, only one witness shri P.C. Rai appeared before the Enquiry Officer and after recording his statement, the Enquiry Officer gave its finding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved by the department. In my opinion, such type of enquiry which is not conducted in accordance with law and without calling all record from the department. In my opinion, such type of enquiry which is not conducted in accordance with law and without calling all record from the department. It is very strange that in the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has exhibited the documents at his own because no witness was produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove documents, in this view of the matter, the department has failed to prove any documents in the enquiry. Therefore, it can be said that the enquiry in question conducted against the petitioner was totally in contravention of the procedure laid down for departmental enquiry.28. In this view of the matter, though the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry as per the procedure laid down under the rules but at the time of consideration, it was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to examine the enquiry report, so furnished by the Enquiry Officer but here in this case the order impugned itself speaks that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its Mind and while accepting enquiry report in toto without even perusing the enquiry report has passed the order of removal which is in contravention of the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in S. N. Mukherjee's case AlR 1990 SC 1984 (supra). The Apex Court in the said judgment has held that reasons must be recorded at the time of exercising judicial or quasi judicial powers. Here, in this case, upon perusal of the impugned removal order, it will reveal that first of all false assertion has been made in the order impugned removal order, it will reveal that first of all false assertion has been made in the order impugned that the petitioner has not filed reply to the show cause notice sent after due enquiry whereas before the Court, it is accepted in the reply filed by the respondents that the reply was received and further no reason are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and straightaway without application of mind passed an order for removal of the petitioner's which is not in consonance with the provisions of law. Therefore, while following the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra), the non-speaking order of removal passed against the principles of natural justice, so also it is passed by the Disciplinary Authority while making false assertion, so also without application of mind.29. Therefore, while following the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra), the non-speaking order of removal passed against the principles of natural justice, so also it is passed by the Disciplinary Authority while making false assertion, so also without application of mind.29. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order of removal dated 10-8-1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be treated in service and shall be taken on duty forthwith. He shall be entitled for back wages from the date of filing writ petition only, i.e. 20-5-2003. The petitioner shall further be entitled for continuity in service for all purposes.30. No order as to cost.Petition allowed. *******