JUDGMENT : S.N.Prasad, J. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.11.2003 vide Memo No.6371(Annexure-9) passed by the Managing Director, Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar terminating the petitioner from service with effect from 1.11.2003 and the order No.9187 dated 11.2.2004 passed by the Chairman which has been communicated by the Managing Director of the Corporation. 2. Case of the petitioner that while he was functioning as Electrical Supervisor under the opposite party no.2, a memo of charge was served upon him alleging therein allegation of unauthorized absence of certain period. After framing of charge the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer and given his defence reply by stating that the unauthorized absence was not willful rather the absence was beyond control of the petitioner, to substantiate his stand, he has made application along with medical certificates. The petitioner has further submitted reply regarding other part of alleged unauthorized absence by stating that these periods have been sanctioned except the period from 2.4.97 to 31.8.97 and 11.8.98 to 15.9.98 and continuing as on today. 3. The Enquiry Officer has submitted its final report proving charge of unauthorized absence against the petitioner, forwarded the same to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has accepted finding of the Enquiry Officer, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner has given reply reiterating the stands of unauthorized absence was not willful rather it was beyond his control because the petitioner was away from the station for the purpose of treatment of his wife and son. He has further stated in his reply that the moment his wife and son have recovered from ailment he has reported to the office. Hence, whatever absence in duty was due to compelling circumstance hence cannot be said to be willful. 4. Disciplinary authority has passed order of termination from service on 13.11.2003(Annexure-9). 5. Against the order dated 13.11.2003 petitioner has preferred appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation, same has also been rejected which has been communicated to the petitioner by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 11.2.2004 (Annexure-12). 6. 4. Disciplinary authority has passed order of termination from service on 13.11.2003(Annexure-9). 5. Against the order dated 13.11.2003 petitioner has preferred appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation, same has also been rejected which has been communicated to the petitioner by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 11.2.2004 (Annexure-12). 6. Petitioner being aggrieved with the order of punishment of termination from service filed this writ on the following grounds: (i) Charge leveled against the petitioner is related to different periods sub-divided under seven numbers after which serial nos.1 to 5 leave was subsequently been sanctioned by the competent authority. But so far as absence as mentioned at serial nos. 6 and 7, applications have been given but same has not been sanctioned rather the Deputy General Manager has forwarded the same to the head office for its consideration and approval, but the Enquiry Officer without taking into consideration the fact that absence mentioned in Sl.Nos. 1 to 5 although subsequently been sanctioned, has taken as allegations and without giving any specific finding in this regard has found the charge proved. (ii) It is a case where petitioner although was absent but the situation so compelled that the petitioner could not be in a position to discharge his duty and as such he made application along with medical certificates, the Enquiry Officer has not given any specific finding regarding willful absent from duty. (iii) Order passed by the Managing Director cannot be said to be an order after considering all the replies given by the petitioner by way of reply to second show cause notice as would be evident from office order dated 13.11.2003, wherein order has been passed after carefully going through he written statement of defence and the oral statement of the delinquent recorded during the personal hearing on 28.10.2003, the delinquent was found guilty of charges and thereafter order of termination has been passed. (iv) Referring to order dated 13.11.2003 it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has passed order by not assigning any reason, the reply given by the delinquent employee but from perusal of the order dated 13.11.2003 there is no consideration of anything as reflected in the order regarding consideration of the reply of the petitioner. (iv) Petitioner preferred appeal before the Chairman but the order of appeal has never been supplied which the petitioner was supposed to be supplied with copy of the order passed by the appellate authority so that it can be seen that fact which has been placed before the appellate authority the same has been taken into consideration, but surprisingly the order passed by the appellate authority has never been communicated to the petitioner rather it is the disciplinary authority, Managing Director, has communicated the appellate order by way of communication dated 11.2.2004 stating therein that appeal petition dated 8.12.2003 against the office order dated 13.11.2003 has been duly considered and rejected by the Chairman. Referring to the said order learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not the requirement of law because the appellate authority in exercise of statutory duty is supposed to pass an order by giving reason although not in detail but brief reason has to be given so that what has going into the mind of the authority while rejecting plea of the delinquent employee, the same must be reflected in the said order then only it can be said that the fact which has been taken before the authority have been taken into consideration. It has been submitted that since punishment of termination of service has been passed, hence the disciplinary authority acted in perfunctory and imposed major punishment terminating the petitioner for service. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-Corporation has contested the case by vehemently opposing the plea taken by the petitioner and has stated that after framing of charge, on the basis of the conduct of the petitioner that he was frequently habit of remaining absence, which amounts to misconduct under the regulation, hence charge has been framed, copy of the same has been served on the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed, petitioner had participated, he has not been given full opportunity to defend himself, Enquiry Officer found the charge proved. 8. The disciplinary authority has issued second cause notice, the petitioner has given due reply, thereafter disciplinary authority has passed order. 8. The disciplinary authority has issued second cause notice, the petitioner has given due reply, thereafter disciplinary authority has passed order. The petitioner has availed opportunity to file appeal provided under the regulation, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, hence it is contended by learned counsel for the opposite party-Corporation that there is no procedural irregularities, as such the order of termination needs no interference by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. The petitioner was holding a substantive post of Electrical Supervisor under the Corporation, a charge of unauthorized absence has been served upon him under the statement of imputation, the following charges have been leveled against the petitioner. “(i) Willful absence from duty frequently causing serious dislocation of Corporation works assigned to him resulting in heavy loss to the Corporation. (ii) Serious negligence in duty in regular manner years together. (iii) Misconduct. These charges have been leveled on the ground of alleged authorized absence, details of which is being given hereinbelow: 1. From 17.7.85 to 8.8.85 - 23 days 2. From 9.3.88 to 25.3.88 - 17 days 3. From 25.5.93 to 25.6.93 - 32 days 4. From 8.8.93 to 6.2.94 - 183 days 5. From 19.2.93 to 28.3.93 - 10 days 6. From 2.4.97 to 31.8.97 - 152 days 7. From 11.8.98 to 15.9.98 and continuing as on today.” 11. Specific stand has been taken by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer that out of 7 alleged unauthorized absence, 5 absence i.e. sl.no.1 to 5 has subsequently been sanctioned but so far as absence at sl.no. 6 and 7 applications have been submitted along with medical certificates because the petitioner due to compelling circumstance has not affected office i.e. illness of his wife and son and no one was there to look after them, hence absence are not willfully rather it was beyond control to discharge his duty. 12. The Enquiry Officer has found the charges proved against the petitioner. From perusal of the enquiry report the Enquiry Officer has found both the charges proved, on its perusal it is not apparent that the Enquiry Officer has given any finding regarding willful absence from duty during the said period. 13. 12. The Enquiry Officer has found the charges proved against the petitioner. From perusal of the enquiry report the Enquiry Officer has found both the charges proved, on its perusal it is not apparent that the Enquiry Officer has given any finding regarding willful absence from duty during the said period. 13. It is correct that unauthorized absence is misconduct, but every unauthorized absence cannot be said to be misconduct unless and until unauthorized absence will be willful, if it is not willful unauthorized absence will not come under category of misconduct. To impose major punishment like termination of service, on account of unauthorized absence, specific finding in this regard is to be given by the Enquiry Officer. In this context, judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & anr., reported in (2012)2 SCC 178 needs to be referred to. From reading of the order pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above, it is apparent that whether unauthorized absence from duty amounts to misconduct or not, cannot be decided without deciding the question whether unauthorized absence is willful or because of compelling circumstance. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc. but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a government servant. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 14. In the present case, Enquiry Officer on appreciation of facts has held that the petitioner was unauthorized absent from duty, but failed to held that absence was willful, the appellate authorized has also failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the petitioner guilty. 15. 14. In the present case, Enquiry Officer on appreciation of facts has held that the petitioner was unauthorized absent from duty, but failed to held that absence was willful, the appellate authorized has also failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the petitioner guilty. 15. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court in judicial review in a departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, reported in (2006)5 SCC 88 wherein at paragraph-25 it has been held: "It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." 16. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that absence from duty was willful, no such finding has been given by the Enquiry Officer or the appellate authority. The petitioner had taken specific defence that he was absent from duty due to illness of his wife, son and of his own, in support of which medical certificates have also been produced, but all these things have been ignored, charge has been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. In this context, petitioner has also given reply before the disciplinary authority at the time of filing reply to second show cause notice, in the memorandum of appeal, and in the Memorial, but no reasoned order has been passed. In this context, petitioner has also given reply before the disciplinary authority at the time of filing reply to second show cause notice, in the memorandum of appeal, and in the Memorial, but no reasoned order has been passed. Issuance of show cause notice or the appeal or the Memorial is statutory right granted under the Disciplinary and Apepal Rule, same cannot be said to be a mere formality, authorities before whom these applications are file, they are supposed to pass reasoned order, it is made only for consideration of the point by the authority. Consideration has got wide meaning which has been discussed at paragraph-19 of the judgment in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 which is being quoted below: “The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order.” 17. From perusal of the impugned order, no reason has been assigned by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the authority who has decided the Memorial which suggests that the points which has been raised the petitioner has not been considered, in other words, the order is not speaking. It is settled that non-speaking order amounts to miscarriage of justice and also it is in violation of principle of natural justice, in this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in (1990)4 SCC 594 at paragraph-39 held as follows: “ xxx Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. xxx” This it is settled that non-speaking order or not recording reason is violation of principles of natural justice. 18. It is settled that appellate authority who is empowered to decide Memorial is not suppose to give detail reason in the judgment, but it is expected from them to at least give brief reason for concurrent view of the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. In this connection, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudan Rao, reported in (2008)3 SCC 469 at paragraph-20 wherein it has been held: “It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interest of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” 19. In view of the facts referred to above and after its consideration, order dated 13.11.2003 (Anenxure-9) and order dated 11.2.2004 (Annexure-12) are not sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby quashed. Since the allegations of unauthorized absence has been alleged against the petitioner, it is settled that if an employee remained absent without any reason, which is gross misconduct under the service jurisprudence and if the absence is willful, the employee has no right to remain in service. 20. Having this fact in mind, the matter is remitted before the Managing Director of the Corporation who shall pass fresh order after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter which was brought by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and reply to the second show cause within a period of ten weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.