JUDGMENT By Court. -The petitioner, Arvind Kumar, was departmentally proceeded for certain charges contained in Annexure-4 i.e. enquiry report. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 30.5.2005 as contained in Annexure-7. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been dismissed by an order dated 9.1.2006 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition by affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged, the order as contained in Annexures-7 and 9 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as of the Appellate Authority. Some relevant facts required to be 'noticed are as under:- 2. On 21.12.1992 at about 6.30 p.m., one Nirmala Devi submitted a fardbeyan before S.1. of Lohardaga Police Station alleging therein that on that date at about 4.00 p.m., she was in her house and at that time, one young man came there and by introducing himself as Dilip, entered into her house and asked for a glass of water. She further alleged that when the said accused reached near her, he caught her right hand and started squeezing her breast and thereafter threw her on a cot, at this, she raised hulla, upon which, his brother Suresh Prasad came there and then the accused fled away. She further alleged that the other accused was standing outside of her house. Thereafter the villagers chased both of the culprits and they were caught by the villagers. On being caught, they disclosed their names as Dilip and Arvind i.e. the present petitioner. In the meantime, police patrolling party reached there and then those two accused persons were handed over to the police. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, a first information report was registered against both the accused persons and they were taken into custody. The police thereafter on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 448, 376, 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, by judgment dated 18.9.1996 held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused persons and thereby acquitted them from the charges. 4. Both the accused persons were police constables. However, the trial court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, by judgment dated 18.9.1996 held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused persons and thereby acquitted them from the charges. 4. Both the accused persons were police constables. The petitioner Arvind Kumar was departmentally proceeded for the charges, the details of which have already been mentioned in the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ petition. It appears that during course of enquiry, neither the informant nor any other witnesses mentioned in the first information report were examined. Only the Sub-Inspector of Police before whom the fardbeyan was lodged and one another police official, namely, Asim Kumar Dasgupta, were examined and some documents were adduced in evidence. These documents established that the petitioner was arrested at the spot and was sent to jail. The other document was brought on record to establish the fact that he was suspended from service after he was sent to jail. 5. The enquiry officer on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, found that the charges against the petitioner were established and thereby passed an order of punishment for dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, which has been dismissed as already stated herein above, by order dated 19.1.2006 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the orders as contained in Annexure-7 and Annexure-9 passed by the disciplinary authority as well of the Appellate Authority respectively on the ground that since the petitioner was acquitted by a competent Criminal Court for exactly the same charges, then he ought to have been exonerated in the departmental proceeding also. 7. I am unable to accept such argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, since the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charge which were there before the Criminal Court were not exactly the same. 8. As a matter of fact, the charges in the departmental inquiry was as under:- "1. 7. I am unable to accept such argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, since the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charge which were there before the Criminal Court were not exactly the same. 8. As a matter of fact, the charges in the departmental inquiry was as under:- "1. Aarop.-Prashikchu police 79 Arvind Kumar par ghor kartabya hinta, anushashanhinta, laparwahi, sandhinged aacharan, aakarmantaya, police ke chhabi ko dhumil karne ka nimnalikhit binduon par aarop lagaya jata hai:- ki jab yet prashikshan aawadhi me prashikshan praptra kar rahe hai to prashikshan ke dauran enko Lohardaga zila sampradayik danga, vidhi vyavashta duty me sashastra bar ke rup me pratiniyukt kiya gaya tha. Vidhi vyavashta duty ke kram me thanaSenha, zila-Lohardaga ko ladki Nirma Devi ke sath balatkar karne ka prayash kiye. Es sabandh me Lohardaga zila Senha thana kaand sankhya 103/92 dinank 21.12.2002. dhara 376/511 Bha. Da. Vi. ankit kiya gaya tha, tatha enhe giriptar kar jail bhej gaya tha. Es aarop ke liye en he Hazaribagh ziladesh sankhya 11/93 dwara nilambit kiya gaya," whereas the charge against the petitioner before the criminal court was for commission of the offence under Sections 448, 376, 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for committing house trespass, attempt to commit rape and for using criminal force on a woman to outrage her modesty. It is apparent that the charges were not the exactly same and similar. 9. Mr. Roy, further submitted that from perusal of Annexure-9 i.e. the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it appears that without assigning any reason whatsoever, he has dismissed the appeal, which would clearly indicate that the same has been passed without application of his mind. 10. Learned Senior Counsel placed the whole order passed by the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-9. After going through the said order, I am constrained to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel that in a very cryptic manner, the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner. From Annexure-8 i.e. the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner, it appears that several points were raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, but the order as contained in Annexure-9 does not show that any of the points raised by the petitioner has been considered by the appellate authority. From Annexure-8 i.e. the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner, it appears that several points were raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, but the order as contained in Annexure-9 does not show that any of the points raised by the petitioner has been considered by the appellate authority. Rather, in one line, he has stated that after perusing the memo of appeal and the relevant records, he also found that the petitioner was guilty for the charges made against him. The said order passed by the appellate authority clearly suffers from non-application of his mind. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the Appellate• Authority as contained in Annexure-9, cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.1.2006 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to him for fresh consideration and for passing a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law on the basis of the materials already available on record within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.