JUDGMENT 1. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-II Hanumangarh by an order dated 18.9.2014 held the appellant petitioner guilty for theft of water and imposed a penalty of disconnection of his turn for having water facility for a period of one year with 20 times penalty. Before imposing the penalty aforesaid, the appellant-petitioner was called for to explain the charge of theft under a notice dated 08.9.2014. Despite the notice, the appellant-petitioner did not appear before the Executive Engineer. He preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Circle, Hanumangarh with assertion that he did not commit any theft, thus, the penalty imposed upon him is unjust. The Appellate Authority by the order dated 27.4.2015, dismissed the appeal on the count that despite notice, the appellant did not choose to appear before the Executive Engineer. 2. To challenge both the orders referred above, the petitioner preferred a petition for writ before this Court that came to be dismissed by the order dated 21.5.2014 on the ground that the two authorities gave concurrent finding and that does not require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Before us, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant-petitioner failed to appear before the Executive Engineer because of bona fide reasons and the Appellate Authority did not examine those reasons. The reasons given should have been considered and the matter should have been remanded to the Executive Engineer for decision afresh. As per learned counsel, the dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Executive Engineer imposing severe punishment of stoppage of water facility for a year is a severe punishment, and therefore, just to meet the ends of justice at least one opportunity should be given to him to explain his conduct and to establish his innocence. 3. Per contra, as per learned counsel for the respondents, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner appellant failed to avail opportunity of hearing provided to him by the Executive Engineer. It is also stated that the learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion the instant one is not a fit case to interfere looking to the concurrent finding of two courts, therefore, no interference with the orders impugned is desirable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is also stated that the learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion the instant one is not a fit case to interfere looking to the concurrent finding of two courts, therefore, no interference with the orders impugned is desirable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. True it is, the appellant-petitioner failed to appear before the Executive Engineer in pursuance to the notice issued and the Executive Engineer is empowered to decide the matter on merits on non appearance of any of the party,but the appellate authority should have considered all aspects of the matter including bonafides pleaded by the petitioner for his non appearance. The Appellate Authority instead of doing so, has dismissed the appeal ipse dixit by observing that the appellant failed to respond the notice. The penalty of stoppage of water facility for a year is serious punishment for an agriculturist and that should be imposed only after taking all necessary care and as far as possible by making best efforts to call upon the person effected for hearing. The authorities of the Irrigation Department before taking any action should have ensured that adequate opportunity to defend is given to an agriculturist. The Executive Engineer in the instant matter would have waited for a period of some days and would have issued a fresh notice for final adjudication of the matter. The cases of agriculturist using irrigation facilities should be dealt with by little generosity. In the instant matter, the Appellate Authority should have examined at least the reasons given by the petitioner for his non appearance. The Appellate Authority should have also examined the merits of the case. In appeal, it was obligatory for the Appellate Authority to consider each and every contention raised by the appellant. The non consideration of the same makes the entire exercise unjust and arbitrary. 5. Having considered this factual background, we deem it appropriate to accept this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 21.5.2015 is set aside. The orders passed by the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer dated 18.9.2014 and 27.4.2015 respectively are also set aside. The Executive Engineer shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the entire issue afresh within a period of one month from today.Appeal allowed. *******