JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, prayer has been made for quashing the order of punishment contained in notification dated 04.12.2012 issued by respondent no.2, pertaining to withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner and for quashing of the order dated 17.06.2013 passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell are that while the petitioner was holding the post of Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Jamshedpur, a memo of three charges were framed against him vide memo dated 07.02.2007. As per charge No.1, it was alleged that in Hata-Swaspur-Musabani Road, certain irregularities were found in widening work and thickness as per the specifications and the petitioner is guilty of not discharging his responsibilities as per Rule 23 of the P.W.D. Code. As regards charge No.2, petitioner was alleged to have caused financial loss to the Government, and hence, is guilty of Rule 3(2) (3) of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. Charge No.3 is related to non-compliance of the direction of the Engineer in Chief as contained in letter dated 06.06.2006, as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. Subsequently, another proceeding was framed against the petitioner relating to construction of Adityapur-Kandra Road, containing three charges vide dated 06.03.2009, as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. After receipt of the first set of charge, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations levelled against him with reasons and supporting documents. The matter was inquired into by the Engineer-in-Chief, Jamshedpur, who submitted his report dated 18.09.2007 and the Engineer-in-Chief found the construction work in order, as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. In respect of charge dated 07.02.2007 inquiry officer found charge nos. 1 and 2 proved and Charge no. 3 was held not proved. In pursuance to the second proceeding, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations made therein. In the said proceeding, the inquiry officer found all the charges not proved against the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-9 to the writ application. After conclusion of the inquiry and on receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice, in respect of both the charges. In compliance to the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. After conclusion of the inquiry and on receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice, in respect of both the charges. In compliance to the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority without considering the second show cause reply, passed the order of punishment of withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner, which has impugned in the writ application, as evident from Annexure-12 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the appellate authority, which stood rejected vide notification dated 17.06.2013 as evident from Annexure-14 to the writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Navin Kumar Singh and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar as well as Mr. Shweta Singh (J.C to G.P-V) appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned orders being cryptic and non-speaking are liable to be set at naught. The respondent authorities have not considered the show cause reply and also the appeal filed by the petitioner and the grounds taken therein, therefore, the impugned orders are susceptible to judicial review. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of punishment of withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner is in the teeth of Rule 43 b of the Pension Rule. Since, no financial/pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government, the respondent authority could not have passed such orders for withholding of 20% of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner is quite harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charges, therefore, the impugned order of punishment are violative of Article 14, 21 and 311A of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ application. Mrs. Shweta Singh, J.C. to G.P.V. appearing for respondents, apart from reiterating her submissions made in the counter affidavit, has assiduously submitted that the charges were levelled against the petitioner for alleged irregularities in the construction work of widening and strengthening of Hata-Swaspur Musabani Road, Chaibasa Division and for alleged irregularity in the construction of four lane, bridges and culverts of Adityapur-Kandra Road under the Road Division, Jamshedpur. In the first proceeding, two charges have been proved out of three charges and in the second departmental proceeding, all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved, therefore, the disciplinary authority on the basis of the report of inquiry officer, has inflicted the punishment of withholding of 20% of pension, which has been thoroughly reviewed by the appellate authority, who finally confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the State further submits that so far as punishment is concerned, the quantum of punishment is not disproportionate, in the light of loss caused to the Government exchequer and the order of punishment inflicted to the petitioner is, in accordance with law. 7. After giving my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to following facts and reasons: (I) In the instant case, the grounds taken by the petitioner in the second show cause reply and in appeal have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, and in the departmental proceeding all the relevant materials have been discarded by the respondent authorities. The preliminary inquiry conducted by the Engineer in Chief, have not been considered by the disciplinary authority, thereby, giving go bye to the settled principles of departmental principles. The preliminary inquiry conducted by the Engineer in Chief, have not been considered by the disciplinary authority, thereby, giving go bye to the settled principles of departmental principles. The impugned order of punishment of withholding of 20% of Pension has been passed in flagrant violation of Rule 43 b of the Pension Rule, which inter alia envisages:- "43.(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement:" (II) From perusal of the inquiry report, it is quite evident that no finding has been recorded by the inquiry officer for causing any pecuniary loss to the Government, therefore, the impugned order of withholding of 20% of pension appears to have been passed in misconstruing aforesaid provisions of the Pension Rules, which cannot stand to the test of reasoning, hence the same is liable to be interfered with. (III) In the instant case, the petitioner submitted a detailed appeal giving cogent reasons for exonerating him from the alleged charges and for setting aside the impugned order of punishment but the order of the appellate authority appears to be cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order, without delving into the grounds taken in the appeal. In this respect, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 (Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. v. A. Masilamani), wherein at paragraph 19, it has been held as under:- "19. 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. 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 (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar and Bhikhubhai Vithalabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat)." 8. Viewed thus, as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid factual and legal aspects, the impugned order of punishment dated 04.12.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the appellate authority being not legally sustainable, are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority to pass appropriate order taking into consideration the grounds taken in the show cause reply and the appeal, and pass orders on the quantum of punishment, in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.