ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 30th June 2005 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (Respondent No. 2) whereby the punishment of reduction by two stages in the time scale on a cumulative basis retrospectively from May 2003, has been imposed upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 17/22nd February 2006 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that while functioning as a Superintending Engineer (Civil) at Lodna Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, he was served with a memorandum of charge under section 29 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 together with article of charges and statement on computation of misconduct. As per the charges, he was alleged to have prepared a format amounting to Rs. 11,942.92 paise for repair work. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that no payments were made pursuant to the preparation of the said format. It is further submitted that the preparation of the Format passed through several authorities and it does not amount to certification of execution of work. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on that charges and a report was submitted by the inquiry officer holding him guilty (annexure-3). The enquiry officer also held that an Engineering Assistant H.R.P. Singh and Area Finance Manager were mainly responsible. The petitioner was thereafter served with the inquiry report. However, being not satisfied with his representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment contained at Annexure-4 dated 30th June 2005. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed confirming the original order of punishment. The appellate order has been passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited which is at annexure-6. It is the contention of the petitioner that though, some charges have been levelled against him in relation to preparation of the format amounting to rupees eleven thousand and odd, but it never led to any payment to any party, according to the respondent themselves. It is the contention of the petitioner that though, some charges have been levelled against him in relation to preparation of the format amounting to rupees eleven thousand and odd, but it never led to any payment to any party, according to the respondent themselves. Counsel for the petitioner submits that mere perusal of the original order of the Disciplinary Authority as also the appellate order, would show that no reasons have been assigned while passing the order of punishment or confirming the said order in appeal. He submitted that the exercise of imposing punishment being in the nature of quasi judicial function, requires application of mind and recording of reasons. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another versus Ananta Saha and others (2011) 5 SCC 142 to submit that in the said case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority should show any application of mind and recording of reasons before passing the said order. Counsel for the petitioner has therefore assailed the said orders as arbitrary and cryptic as well as suffering from non-application of mind. 4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a detailed proceeding was followed in which the petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceeding and thereafter, the concerned inquiry officer has submitted his report which holds the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges that the petitioner had signed the format and left the possibility for fraudulent payment to the contractor without taking the work and as such, he is guilty of misconduct under the CAD Rules, 1978. Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and another versus Prabhu Dayal Grover (1995) 6 SCC 279 and in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd And Another versus P.K. Khanna reported in (2005) 7 SCC 597 . Counsel for the respondents by relying upon the said judgments, submits that when the Disciplinary Authority concurs with the findings of the inquiry officer, then there is no implicit requirement of showing reasons in the order of punishment. Counsel for the respondents by relying upon the said judgments, submits that when the Disciplinary Authority concurs with the findings of the inquiry officer, then there is no implicit requirement of showing reasons in the order of punishment. It is therefore submitted that in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has only concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer finding the petitioner guilty and has passed the impugned order of punishment which is wholly just, proper and legal in the eye of law and it does not suffer from any non-application of mind. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. The perusal of the order contained at annexure-4 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of reduction by two stages in time scale on a cumulative basis retrospectively from May 2003, does not disclose any reason or application of mind on the charges found to have been proved by the inquiry officer and upon consideration of the show-cause by the petitioner and on the guilt said to have been pointed out in the inquiry report of the inquiry officer. It further appears that the petitioner represented on the furnishing of the inquiry report, but it appears that no second show-cause was issued to him. The Appellate Authority vide annexure-6 has confirmed the order of punishment which also does not show any discussion on the grounds taken by the petitioner while moving the Appellate Authority. 6. It appears from the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited (Supra) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the authority has to show some reasons for initiation of the inquiry and conclusion thereof. It has to pass a speaking order and cannot be an ipse dixit either of the enquiry officer or the authority. The respondents have relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Supra) wherein regulations of the Bank were under consideration and the second in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd (Supra), National Fertilizers Limited Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules were under consideration in the respective cases. The present case however relates to rules applicable under the Coal India Ltd. in relation to which the judgment relied by the petitioner has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present case however relates to rules applicable under the Coal India Ltd. in relation to which the judgment relied by the petitioner has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It further appears that though the petitioner had framed the format, but the same had not resulted in payment of any amount to any party. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of punishment dated 30th June 2005 does not appear to be sustainable in law as well as on the facts and the same is accordingly quashed. However, it will be open to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law on the basis of the inquiry report. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.