JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order, dated 30.09.2009, whereby and whereunder, a sum of Rs.3,16,622/- has been ordered to be recovered from the monthly salary of the petitioner on 55 installments and the balance amount of Rs.1,51,000/-has been ordered to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Plot Watcher, on 01.04.1979. Subsequently, he was appointed as Forest Watcher, on 26.06.1992 and later, promoted as Forest Guard. The respondent issued a charge memo, dated 07.04.1998, levelling as many as four charges. Two other officials were also issued with the same set of charges, as levelled against the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. He conducted preliminary enquiry, on 07.04.1999 and on the same day, the petitioner requested him to furnish certain documents and also permit him to engage an advocate to defend the case effectively. Alleging that the Enquiry Officer acted in a biased manner, the petitioner made a representation seeking change of Enquiry Officer. The Conservator of Forests, Madurai, passed an order, on 16.04.1999, rejecting the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, another Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted oral enquiry, on several occasions and the petitioner also attended the same and the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry, concluding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the enquiry report, the first respondent, by the impugned order, dated 30.09.2009, directed to recover a sum of Rs.3,16,622/-from the monthly salary of the petitioner on 55 installments and the balance amount of Rs.1,51,000/-has been ordered to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to the commencement of the enquiry, the petitioner had sought for copies of deposition and statement of witnesses recorded during the oral enquiry, but, without furnishing the same, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and concluded the same holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thus, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his case effectively. 4. Thus, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his case effectively. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would make an attempt to sustain the impugned order and contend that the first respondent, on a careful consideration of the materials available on record, passed the impugned order, imposing appropriate punishment on the petitioner, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. Admittedly, on a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner remained exparte. The Petitioner, as evident from the records, has been demanding the copies of the documents and statements based on which the charges have been framed. The petitioner had also requested for the change of enquiry officer, as his demands for furnishing copies of documents and statements were not met. Having lost the trust in the enquiry officer, the petitioner has chosen to abstain himself from the proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be said to have been conducted after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Grant of opportunity cannot be an empty formality. It is also evident from the records that inspections were conducted and the irregularities were identified in the absence of the petitioner. There is also nothing on record to show that the delinquent employee was informed in advance and asked to accompany the inspection team. Also nothing is mentioned either in the enquiry report or the impugned order to show that action was taken against the section of public that was illegally carrying on fallen woods. It is alleged that about 50 persons were illegally carrying on fallen woods. It is not possible for all of them to escape. The enquiry officer by treating that the statement of defence of the petitioner cannot be different from that of the other delinquent employees, who were also charged together, held the petitioner guilty. The respondent also has accepted the verdict of the enquiry officer. It is also evident from the records that the petitioner had submitted his detailed objections to the enquiry report raising various contentions, like the inspection was not conducted in his presence, he was denied reasonable opportunity to peruse the documents, he was only a Forest Watcher, etc. The respondent also has accepted the verdict of the enquiry officer. It is also evident from the records that the petitioner had submitted his detailed objections to the enquiry report raising various contentions, like the inspection was not conducted in his presence, he was denied reasonable opportunity to peruse the documents, he was only a Forest Watcher, etc. The respondent, without giving specific findings on each and every points raised by the petitioner, had rejected the objections by merely observing as follows: “Tamil” 7. On the same set of facts, in an appeal filed by another delinquent employee, the Divisional Forest Officer, while modifying the punishment awarded to another employee, had observed that the inspecting officers erred in not taking the signature of the employee in the register after inspection, there is no evidence to prove that the felled logs were sold to tannin and paper factories, that the fixation of price is also not in order, that the respondent failed to get the sanction of the Government as required under Letter No.Aa.Aa 3/58026/2003, dated 30.10.2009, that there are defects and contradictions, that the charge that the eucalyptus leaves were taken away to make medicine and the charge that the employees failed to prevent unauthorized carry of fallen wood have not been proved, that even though it has been proved that the miscreants used different unmanned paths to reach 500 ft below the hills to plant Marijuana held them guilty, and after considering that the enquiry proceedings were protracted for 13 years modified the punishment of recovery of Rs.6,82,005/- by reducing it to Rs.1,70,500/- and also modifying the punishment of treating the period of suspension as specific punishment into one as stoppage of increment for three months with cumulative effect. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the punishment as modified by the appellate authority in the said case is also erroneous after giving findings in favour of the employee. 8. This Court is not going into the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner, as they relate challenge of charge memo on the ground of delay. In the present case, the stage has crossed and an order also has been passed based on the findings of the enquiry officer. 9. 8. This Court is not going into the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner, as they relate challenge of charge memo on the ground of delay. In the present case, the stage has crossed and an order also has been passed based on the findings of the enquiry officer. 9. In the Judgment in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney reported in 2009 (4) SCC 240 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover case [ (1995) 6 SCC 279 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1376 : (1995) 31 ATC 492], has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. 9. No doubt, in S.N.Mukherjee case [ (1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669], it has been observed that : (SCC p. 613, para 36) "36. ..... The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons, if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge." The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority. 11. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority. 11. Hence, we agree with the High Court that reasons should have been contained in the appellate authority's order, but we cannot understand why the High Court has set aside the order of the disciplinary authority, in addition to setting aside the appellate order." 10. On a careful analysis of the findings of the respondent and the Divisional Forest Officer, this Court is only able to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved in toto even in his absence. In the present case, as already held by me, the respondent has not considered and appreciated the objections properly. Similarly, this Court is also of the view that for the same set of charges, more than one punishment cannot be awarded. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstance of the case, the impugned order, dated 30.09.2009, passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for passing orders afresh on the objections of the petitioner and also considering the observations made in the order passed by the Divisional Forest officer, dated 11.03.2011, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.