JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing legality and validity of the order Annexure-4 dated 30.9.2010 whereby the petitioner's Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed a penalty of censure upon the petitioner. 2. Facts in brief are that a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner with the allegation that while driving the Corporation's vehicle in May 2008, the petitioner recorded an average fuel consumption of 4.33 kmpl whereas the same vehicles which the petitioner drove recorded average consumption of 4.64 kmpl when driven by other drivers and thereby the petitioner consumed excess fuel to the tune of 90 litres causing loss of Rs. 2886/- to the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer upon conducting through inquiry found that the petitioner was not guilty of the charge. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry report and concluded that the petitioner caused loss of 89 ltrs. diesel valued at Rs. 2817/- to the Corporation and he was awarded minor penalty of censure by the impugned order dated 30.9.2010 (Annexure-4) which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an order dated 4.4.2014 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 152/2011 preferred by the petitioner wherein, examining an identical controversy, this Court quashed an identical order of punishment. He submits that the Inquiry Officer examined the matter in detail and reached to a conclusion that the charge alleged against the petitioner regarding excess consumption of diesel was not sustainable because on a comparative analysis, the petitioner's defence that better average was recorded when the vehicles were driven on longer routes whereas the petitioner drove the vehicles on shorter routes and thus recorded lesser average was plausible and logical. He contends that the findings recorded in the inquiry report were based on an appropriate assessment of the facts and material available on record and thus the Disciplinary Authority was not justified in disagreeing with the same. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent endeavoured to support the impugned order. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent endeavoured to support the impugned order. A query was put to the learned counsel to show from the material available on record as to whether it was possible to identify the route on which the comparatively better average fuel consumption was recorded in the same vehicles. He candidly conceded that there is no material to show that the average recorded by the petitioner and the higher average which was used as a yardstick by the Disciplinary Authority to hold the petitioner guilty were recorded for the same route. 5. It is trite knowledge that when a vehicle is used on circuitous and a shorter route, the average consumption of fuel would be on the higher side. When same vehicle is used on longer routes, the average fuel consumption would be lower. Thus, comparing the average of the vehicles driven by the petitioner on a short route with the average given by the same vehicle without specification of route could not have been appropriate yardstick to hold the petitioner responsible for higher fuel consumption and to punish him for the alleged loss caused to the Corporation. Thus, manifestly, the impugned order annexure-4 is totally baseless as the Disciplinary Authority did not assign justifiable reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 6. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annexure-4 dated 30.9.2010 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.