JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Earlier the petitioner was dismissed from service due to a set of charges basically relating to misappropriation of Government money while being posted as a Forest Officer at Topchanchi. The order of dismissal was set aside by the High Court on the technicality that the order of punishment has been passed without serving a copy of the enquiry report or by issuing second show cause. The order passed earlier by this Court is Annexure-4. 3. Since the enquiry report was brought before the High Court in the counter affidavit itself that was considered valid service of the copy of the report, the petitioner was asked to show cause. His show cause is Annexure-5 to the writ application. 4. His primary submission is that the order of punishment which has come to be passed in Annexure-6 imposing certain punishment has been passed without application of mind because his 22 pages of explanation has not been dealt with by the disciplinary authority. 5. Application of mind is a relative term. The disciplinary authority is not expected to write detailed judicious order on every aspect which has been raised by the petitioner in his explanation or show cause. The Court has also gone through annexure-5 which is the explanation offered by the petitioner. But how this takes away the basic finding of misappropriation and forging of the documents for misappropriation is not understood by this Court. The disciplinary authority has categorically held that the finding of misappropriation is there, forging of record to justify that mis-appropriation of public money is there and even then the petitioner pleads non-application of mind. The Court has certain reservation in accepting such a stand. 6. Materials are there for the disciplinary authority to pass the order of the kind. The Court can only observe that the disciplinary authority had been lenient and indulgent to the petitioner in the matter of imposition of punishment in question because if a bus conductor could be dismissed from service and such a dismissal upheld by the Apex Court for a paltry sum of Rs.100/- odd, the charge in that respect so far petitioner is concerned is much more grave. 7. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.