ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Shanti Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nutan Sahay, learned AC to GA-5. 2. The sole petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of order contained in Memo No.530-2 dated 02.09.2004 (Anexure-2) issued under the signature of the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Saharsa, by which the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and further he has been inflicted punishment of stoppage four increments with cumulative effect. By the said order, the petitioner has been debarred from performing any such work, which involves financial and supervision work for ever. The said punishment has been directed to be recorded in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of order dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa in Service Appeal No.12/2005, whereby he has approved the punishment order and dismissed the appeal. 3. Short fact of the case is that after preliminary enquiry, the petitioner and two others were found involved in misappropriating government fund and put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for following charges: Charge no.1: It is alleged that one Panchayat Sewak of Gram Panchayat Murli Basantpur, namely, Jyotish Prasad produced the voucher of advance payment against social security pension/old age pension to the beneficiaries of the same Panchayat. The total amount produced in the voucher by the Panchayat Sewak was Rs.3,61,800/-. The allegation against the petitioner is that the vouchers produced by said Jyotish Prasad were irregularly adjusted by the petitioner and without enquiry the advance amount was adjusted in cashbook by the petitioner without the signature of said Jyotish Prasad. Charge no.2: It has been alleged that had the petitioner, being Nazir, enquired into the procedure and formalities of the adjustment prior to adjustment of the amount of vouchers, the defalcation of such a huge amount could have been saved. Charge no.3: The petitioner has done unsuccessful efforts having ignored the financial rules, hence it appears that he is invited in the defalcation of the amount. Charge no.4: It appears that the petitioner in collusion with other employees has misappropriated the government money knowingly, for which he seems to be guilty.” 4. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner participated and filed his show cause. Charge no.4: It appears that the petitioner in collusion with other employees has misappropriated the government money knowingly, for which he seems to be guilty.” 4. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner participated and filed his show cause. Thereafter, the Conducting Officer submitted its report to the disciplinary authority and in the report he found the charges against the petitioner as proved. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued, which was replied by the petitioner denying the charges as alleged against him. However, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 02.09.2004 issued under the signature of the Establishment Deputy Collector, Saharsa imposed punishment, as indicated herein above. The order of the disciplinary authority has been brought on record as Annexure-2. Against the order of the disciplinary authority , the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Service Appeal no.12/2005 before the Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa, which was rejected by order dated 10.10.2006, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the present petition. 5. Sri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel assailing the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, has initially argued that during the departmental enquiry, despite request made by the petitioner for providing relevant documents, same were never supplied to the petitioner and, as such, he has argued that due to non-supply of relevant documents, the entire proceeding is vitiated. He has further argued that though the conducting officer examined the witnesses during departmental enquiry, the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine them. He has also argued that conducting officer conducted the departmental proceeding in a perfunctory manner and submitted an evasive enquiry report. The disciplinary authority without applying his mind and without assigning any reason has passed the order of punishment. He has primarily assailed the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that the order is non-speaking, which reflects non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Sri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel by way of referring to supplementary affidavit submits that of course, by punishment order i.e. Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner was debarred from the financial work for ever, but at subsequent stage, the petitioner’s work was found satisfactory and he was given promotion and vide Annexur-10 to the supplementary affidavit, the Dy. Collector (Establishment), Saharsa has recalled the order, where by the petitioner was debarred from financial work. 6. Collector (Establishment), Saharsa has recalled the order, where by the petitioner was debarred from financial work. 6. Learned counsel for the State refuting the prayer of the petitioner submits that charges levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature, however, a lenient approach was taken and punishment order has been passed, as indicated above. She has further argued that even in reply to the second show cause notice, the petitioner himself has accepted that the vouchers, which were presented by the Panchayat Sewak, were unsigned and even on the basis of unsigned and fake vouchers, an advance taken by the Panchayat Sewak was adjusted by the petitioner. She submits that of course, in the order of the disciplinary authority, a detailed reason has not been assigned but the said defect has been cured by the appellate authority. By way of referring to statement made in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, she submits that vouchers submitted by Jyotish Prasad, Panchayat Sewak were fake and forged and having no signature, even then the petitioner processed the vouchers and took steps for adjusting the advance taken by Sri Jyotish Prasad, Panchayat Sewak. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Of course, the allegation levelled against the petitioner, prima facie, appears to be serious in nature but to the reasons best known to the authority concerned, even in case of temporary embezzlement, no action was taken by the authority concerned for initiating criminal prosecution against the Panchayat Sewak, who had subsequently accepted his guilt and refunded the entire amount of Rs. 3 Lacs and odd. Fact remains that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for the charges, as indicated above. In the departmental proceeding once charges were found established by the Conducting Officer, it was mandatorily required on the part of the disciplinary authority to briefly indicate the charges, for which the delinquent was proceeded, and assign some reason, while agreeing with the enquiry report. On perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority, the Court is satisfied that no reason has been assigned. On perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority, the Court is satisfied that no reason has been assigned. For appropriate adjudication, it would be necessary to quote the order of the disciplinary authority, which is as follows: ^^Jh cyjke ikloku] fyfid] iz[k.M dk;kZy;] lgjlk dks eqjyh clUriqj iapk;r esa lkekftd lqj{kk isa’ku dh jkf’k ds forj.k esa vfu;ferrk ,oa ljdkjh jkf’k ds xcu ds vkjksi esa vkns’k Kkikad& 2025@xks0 fnukad 23-10-2003 ds }kjk fuyfEcr djrs gq, foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk lapkyu fd;k x;k FkkA foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa lapkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr tkWap izfrosnu esa muds fo:) yxk, x, vkjksi lgh ,oa izekf.kr ik, x, gSa A ¼2½ vr% tk¡p inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu ,oa Jh ikloku] }kjk lefiZr f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk ds leh{kksijkUr fuEukafdr n.M ds lkFk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lekIr djrs gq, fuyEcu ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gS%& ¼1½ budh pkj osruo`f);ksa lap;kRed izHkko ls jksdh tkrh gS A ¼2½ Hkfo”; esa lHkh izdkj ds oSls dk;ksZa ftlesa foRrh; ,oa Ik;Zos{k.k dk;Z fufgr gks ls ges’kk ds fy, oafpr fd;k tkrk gS A ¼3½ bldh izfof”V Jh ikloku dh lsokiqLr esa dh tk; A ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds vkns’kkuqlkj g0@& LFkkiuk mi&lekgRrkZ] LkgjlkA** 8. The order of the disciplinary authority makes it clear that it was passed without any application of mind and nothing has been indicated as to on what ground, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. Only it has been indicated that the petitioner was earlier suspended and he was proceeded departmentally. The disciplinary authority has not even indicated in its order as to what were charges. If the disciplinary authority was agreeing with the enquiry report, it was necessary for him to indicate briefly regarding charges and the reason for accepting the enquiry report. In absence of any reason for passing order of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the order of the disciplinary authority is a result of non-application of mind. Of course the appellate authority had tried to develop the case, but fact remains that since the order of the disciplinary authority is itself a result of non application of mind, the order of appellate authority too is liable to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 2nd September, 2004 contained in Annexure-2 is hereby set aside and consequently the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the appellate authority, contained in Annexure-1 is also set aside. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.