JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a former employee of the Erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board, now Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., (GETCO), has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A) A writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.1988 at Annexure-A, and subsequently the same is confirmed by the orders at Annexure-C & D. (B) To grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice." 2. The case of the petitioner may be summarized as under; 2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the office of the respondent-Board in 1972. Later on, he came to be promoted as the Deputy Engineer. While serving as a Deputy Engineer, a departmental charge-sheet was issued, inter-alia, containing the following allegations; "You, Shri K.H. Gondalia, Dy. Engineer (under suspension) working at Const. Sub Division, Dhari, are hereby charged for the following acts of misconduct specified at Sr. No. 3, 9, 10 of Schedule 'A' of the Board's employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Procedure, committed by you. Sr. No. 3:- Loss of material or property of the Board. Sr. No. 9:- Theft, embezzlement, fraud, falsification of accounts tampering with official document, breach of trust, misappropriation or dishonesty in connection with the affairs or property of the Board. Sr. No. 10:- Instances of disloyalty to the Board or the superior under whom the employee is working. The particulars of the above charges are as under:- (i) Your have got your A.G. Connection No. AG-5/89 at Sarsiya, Your connection was physically checked by D.E. Dhari, on 29.11.86 in presence of your servant named Ramsingbhai Amisngbhai and it was found by D.E. That Meter was burnt and connection was directly connected with Board's mains. Again same connection was checked by Shri C.H. Sakaria, D.E., Amreli, and K.m. Mehta, Supdt. of A/c (Rev), Amreli at Sarsiya village on 9.12.1986 and it was found that meter was burnt and connection was direct by passing the meter as meter was burnt. Again same connection was checked by Shri C.H. Sakaria, D.E., Amreli, and K.m. Mehta, Supdt. of A/c (Rev), Amreli at Sarsiya village on 9.12.1986 and it was found that meter was burnt and connection was direct by passing the meter as meter was burnt. According to Indian Penal Code, this is a case of theft of energy and according to our rules Bill was served on A, B, C, D formula for Rs.17,397.45 and same was paid by your considering as theft of power. Thus charge of theft of energy is proved on your part. You have accepted the same, without having any reason. Thus you have committed the misconduct of theft of power of Board. The rojkam for the connection checked by D.E. On 29.11.86 and rojkam of the connection checked by D.E., Amreli and S.A. (Rev) Amreli on 9.12.1986 are enclosed. (2) Our Dy. Engineer Shri R.V. Savalia of Dhari S/Dn. K.P. Patel, Jr. Engr., and N.C. Shukla, Sr. Assttt. Have checked your above connection on dtd. 29.11.1986 and found that in your well there was another motor connected with the meter of Mohanbhai Dayabhai. It was observed that a underground cable was laid approx. 35 meters and connection was in working position when the starter was pushed. Thus a motor of Mohanbhai Dahyabhai (who is your uncle as learnt from available sources) was unauthentically shifted from his well to your well. Being D.E. of G.E. Board, you are fully aware of the rules and regulations that unauthorized shifting is a crime as per rule. However, knowingly our have allowed Shri Mohan Daya's motor unauthorizedly shifted to your well. This is nothing but knowingly you have acted against the rules of the Board and damaged the reputation of G.E. Board. (3) During the checking on 29.11.1986 of your connection of Sarsiya village, it was found that a cable of G.E. Board mark was laid underground from your well to the well of Shri Mohan Daya. Thus it was also observed that in the middle fuse one wire was fixed and it was taken underground of approx. 1000 meters twin wire was laid in the hut of your servant. A rough sketch of the above unauthorized extension of the line is attached herewith. Thus, Board's wire is utilized for unauthorized shifting of connection to your well with your full knowledge. 1000 meters twin wire was laid in the hut of your servant. A rough sketch of the above unauthorized extension of the line is attached herewith. Thus, Board's wire is utilized for unauthorized shifting of connection to your well with your full knowledge. Being an electrical engineer you know that to laid twin aluminum wire in underground is not permissible as it is dangerous for leakage and may cause to any accident at any time. Thus you are responsible for laying the line in underground without the permission and using the G.E. Board materials for your personal use. (4) As per the statement of Babu Mohan son of Mohan Daya (attached herewith) that cable and the P.V.C. Wire were of G.E. Board mark and same were utilized for the above unauthorized connection. Being a Dy. Engineer of G.E. Board, you are supposed to work as per Board's rules and should not laid the line for unauthorized shifting the connection of your uncle and should not have used Board's materials. Thus, you have intentionally committed the crime and become a partner of unauthorized shifting of line using of Board's material. Said materials are now credited in Board's A/C. Vide credit note No. 23424 dtd. 9.6.1987. Copy of the same is attached herewith. (5) Meters are burnt thrice in two years in your above connection at Sarsiya. From the available records, it was noted that meters are burnt and replaced on 10.11.1984, 4.2.86, 13.12.86 and the unit consumption recorded in the meter are very nominal. A statement for the year 1975 to 1986 are enclosed herewith. Now after the replacement meter on 13.12.86 the consumption for January-February 1987 are 3470 unit. Thus meters were purposefully got burnt by you to take the benefit of burnt meter and used the power as per your desire. As per the inquiry report it was noted that you have 7 vigha land with mango and chiku trees in your land but units are not recorded in the meter as the same were got burnt by you with mala-fide intention. Thus theft of power is being carried out since long. Due to your above mal-practice Board has suffered revenue loss. Thus theft of power is being carried out since long. Due to your above mal-practice Board has suffered revenue loss. The above act on your part for theft of power as an employee of the Board, using Board's materials for personal use, unauthorized shifting of connection, using power from burnt meter reveal that you have committed the acts of misconduct as stated above and shown disloyalty to the Board. You are directed to state whether you admit that you are guilty to the charges mentioned above. If not, you are directed to put in your written statement together with such documents as you propose to rely on in support of your defence within 15 days from the date of service of this charge sheet. You are further directed to state whether you desire to cite any witness (in which case their names, designations and addressed should be furnished, indicating the nature of their evidence which is intended to prove or disprove the case) to enable the undersigned to decide whether you should be permitted to produce the witness or witnesses at your own cost. In case your written statement as mentioned above is not received within the above mentioned period ex-parte decision shall be taken." 2.2 The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet referred to above. An inquiry Officer was appointed. At the end of the inquiry, he recorded his findings as under; "The findings are- (1) The charge of lost of material or property of the Board is proved. The materials were utilized illegally for transferring the connection of Shri Mohanbhai Dayabhai. (2) The second charge-theft, embezzlement fraud, breach of trust, misappropriation, dishonesty with the affairs or property of the Board is also proved. (3) The third charge disloyalty to the Board or the superior under whom the employee is working is also proved. Shri Gondalia being the D.E. of the Board the gravity of the charge is more pronounced and no Board employee can be allowed to misuse his position as is observed in the case of Shri Gondalia." 2.3 Taking into consideration the report of the inquiry officer and other materials on record, the Chief Engineer, being the Disciplinary Authority, passed an order dated 30th December, 1988, dismissing the petitioner from the service. The order reads thus; "Shri K.H. Gondalia, Deputy Engineer, (under suspension), Gonst. S/Dn. The order reads thus; "Shri K.H. Gondalia, Deputy Engineer, (under suspension), Gonst. S/Dn. Dhari, was charge sheeted for committing major acts of misconduct vide Charge Sheet No. LGML/VI/DA/KHG/3128 dated 1.10.87. Shri Gondalia had replied to the charge sheet vide his letter dated 24.11.1987. Since the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, it was decided to initiate departmental inquiry against him. Accordingly, Shri AH Vasavada was appointed as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the truth of allegations leveled against Shri Gondalia. Shri Vasavada, Inquiry Officer, has since completed the inquiry against Shri Gondalia and has submitted his report, a copy of which was supplied to Shri Gondalia along with Show Cause Notice No. EG/VI/DA/2337 dated 28.9.86. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and all the relevant documents placed before my predecessor, it was proposed to dismiss Shri KH Gondalia from the Board's services. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice No. BG:V:DA:2337 dated 28.9.88 was served upon Shri Gondalia directing him to explain why he should not be dismissed from the Board's services. I have also gone through all the documents referred to above as also the reply of Shri Gondalia which was received vide his letter dt. 29.11.1988. I concur with the findings of the Inquiry Officer that all the charges leveled against him are proved as also the decision of my predecessor to dismiss Shri Gondalia from Board's services. I am, therefore, of the opinion that ends of justice should be met if Shri Gondalia is dismissed from the Board's services. Shri Gondalia, Dy. Engineer, is accordingly dismissed from Board's services with immediate effect." 2.4 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30th December, 1988 referred to above, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority raising manifold grounds. 2.5 The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 22nd July, 1992, dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal, observed as under; "AND WHEREAS the competent authority in terms of Board's Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Procedure went through the appeal as also the case papers and came to a conclusion that there is no need to review the matter and rejected the appeal. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal, observed as under; "AND WHEREAS the competent authority in terms of Board's Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Procedure went through the appeal as also the case papers and came to a conclusion that there is no need to review the matter and rejected the appeal. Accordingly Shri KH Gondalia is hereby informed that his appeal against dismissal order No. DGM/VI/DA/KHG/2947 dated 30.12.1988 was placed before the competent authority as above who has after going through the appeal and papers rejected the appeal." 2.6 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal, the petitioner preferred a second appeal addressed to the Chairman of the Board raising manifold grounds. The second appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24th March, 1995, which reads as under; "The second appeal dated 22.8.1992 preferred by Shri K.H. Gondalia, Ex- Deputy Engineer against dismissal order No. DGM/VI/DA/KHG/2947 dated 30.12.1988 ordered by Chief Engineer (Dist.) was submitted to the competent appellate authority, who after carefully going through the appeal and other allied papers rejected the second appeal. Accordingly the second appeal dated 22.8.1992 preferred by Shri K.H. Gondalia is hereby rejected and, therefore, the dismissal order issued under No. DGM/VI/DA/KHG/2947 dtd. 30.12.1988 stands." 2.7 Hence, this writ application. 3. Mr. Bhatt, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Tanna Associates, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that all the impugned orders are non-speaking orders. According to him, nothing has been discussed by the First Appellate Authority nor by the Second Appellate Authority. According to him, manifold grounds were raised in the memo of the appeal. However, there is no discussion worth the name regarding those grounds. 4. Mr. Bhatt invited my attention to the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhari in Regular Civil Suit No. 115 of 1987 filed for declaration and refund of the amount paid by the petitioner towards the supplementary bill raised by the Board. In the said civil suit, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the panchnama or rojnama dt. 29.11.86 and 9.12.86 are illegal, in-operative and void? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit bill for the amount of Rs.1,73,97.45ps. Is illegal, inoperative and void? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of Rs.17,397.45 ps.? 29.11.86 and 9.12.86 are illegal, in-operative and void? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit bill for the amount of Rs.1,73,97.45ps. Is illegal, inoperative and void? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of Rs.17,397.45 ps.? (4) To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? (5) What order and decree?" 5. The issues were answered accordingly; "(1) In affirmative (2) In affirmative (3) In affirmative (4) In affirmative (5) As per the final order." 6. He further invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Civil Judge as regards the allegations of tampering with the meter against the petitioner herein. The learned Civil Judge, while allowing the suit filed by the petitioner herein, observed as under; "Hence, the panchnama required to be prepared in the present case as per rules and law, has not been prepared or the rojkam should have been prepared as per rules and law, which has not been done and hence, the same are not proved. That means, the present rojkam which has been prepared, is proved to be against the rules and illegal. Further it is the say of the opponent-Board that the plaintiff has committed theft of electricity power and it doesn't appear that the opponent-Board have initiated proceedings under provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Thus, considering the overall circumstances, I give my decision to point No. 1 in affirmative and the witnesses No. 1 and 2 have been examined by the opponent side who is a deputy engineer and he has made checking/inquiry on the spot, but looking to his statement and cross-examination in this regard, it is not proved that the plaintiff has committed theft of electricity power. Further, though the plaintiff was present during the checking, his signature has not been obtained on the Rojkam prepared. Panchnama has not been prepared and even then, the plaintiff has been issued bill in respect of power theft. It is also not clarified by the opponent-Board as to on which basis said has been issued to the plaintiff by the opponents and how it has been issued. The witness on behalf of opponent-Board-Shri Savaliya, Deputy Engineer stated during his cross-examination that he is not aware as to whether the papers relating to calculation according ABCD formula has been produced or not. He is also not able to tell as to since how long the disputed meter had been closed. The witness on behalf of opponent-Board-Shri Savaliya, Deputy Engineer stated during his cross-examination that he is not aware as to whether the papers relating to calculation according ABCD formula has been produced or not. He is also not able to tell as to since how long the disputed meter had been closed. However, in the present case bill for power theft has been issued to the plaintiff, and hence, it is necessary to clarify as to how and on basis of which calculations he has issued the said bill, but in that behalf, no evidence/basis has been produced by the opponents side. It is the say of the plaintiff that bill has been issued to him illegally whereas it is the say of the opponents that in view of the power theft, the said disputed bill has been issued to the plaintiff, but it is not proved that the plaintiff has committed theft of electricity power and under these circumstances, it can be said that the bill issued by the opponents to the plaintiff is illegal." 7. It appears that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 31st December, 1993 was very much there when the second appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 24th March, 1995. 8. Mr. Bhatt brought to my notice that against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Regular First Appeal No. 4 of 1994 has been filed in the District Court. 9. Mr. Bhatt submits that in view of the same, this writ application merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. 10. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Desai, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. She submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the authorities in dismissing the petitioner from the service. According to Ms. Desai, no interference is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in this writ application. 12. I take notice of the fact that all the three impugned orders are non-speaking orders. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in this writ application. 12. I take notice of the fact that all the three impugned orders are non-speaking orders. No reasons worth the name have been assigned and there is no discussion of any of the submissions raised by the petitioner before the authorities. I have gone through the appeal memos. They are quite exhaustive. Manifold grounds have been raised in both the appeal memos. However, I do not find any discussion worth the name in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the Chairman. According to Ms. Desai, there is nothing like second appeal. No such second appeal has been provided in the regulations. Be that as it may, the fact remains that an appeal was addressed to the Chairman and it seems that he thought fit to dismiss the same. The said dismissal is not on the ground that such appeal to the Chairman is not maintainable. On the contrary, it has been observed in the order that after carefully going through the appeal and other allied papers, the second appeal is dismissed. 13. When the second appeal was looked into by the authority concerned, the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was very much there and whatever its worth, it should have been looked into because there is a categorical finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge that the plaintiff was not responsible for the theft of the electricity and had not tampered with the meters. 14. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Maganbhai Oza v. State of Gujarat reported in, 2016 (2) GLR 1607 , this court observed as under:-- "8.1 Legal importance of the reasons in an order was explained by the Supreme Court in Daya Ram v. Raghunath, (2007) 11 SCC 241 in the following words. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. 8.2 Recording of reasons is an aspect of natural justice. The reasons properly recorded in support of an order is the natural justice duly complied with in that part. The principle that the reason in an order is an ingredient of natural justice becomes clear from the following judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785 , the Apex Court observed as under: The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities....... (Para 14) 15. In B.V. Gor v. Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board & Anr. reported in 2011 (4) GLR 3211, I have explained what is expected of the appellate authority and how he supposed to decide the appeal. I may quote the observations as under:-- "5. It is abundantly clear from the notings in the file that there is no order passed by the appellate authority which would indicate any independent application of mind by the appellate authority. I may quote the observations as under:-- "5. It is abundantly clear from the notings in the file that there is no order passed by the appellate authority which would indicate any independent application of mind by the appellate authority. The findings which are recorded by the disciplinary authority can always be re-appreciated by the appellate authority. As an appellate authority, it can take a different view on the same set of evidence. Appellate authority also owes a duty to see as to whether procedure laid down in the rules was complied with, inquiry officer was justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and, whether penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive. 6. I am of the view that the appellate authority has failed to discharge his duty as the law demands. Appeal is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner as a delinquent. It is a valuable right which the rules has conferred upon the petitioner as a delinquent and, therefore the delinquent is well within his rights to expect the appellate authority to reconsider the entire matter being the final fact finding authority. 7. I am not at all satisfied with the manner in which the appeal is decided and disposed of. It is a settled position of law that an appellate order if it is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order but the authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind on his part as regard the compliance of the requirement of the law while exercising his jurisdiction under the Rules. 7.1 In case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, 1991 (1) SCC 759, it has been stated as under: "The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities." (Emphasis supplied) 7.2 In case of Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co Ltd., & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1748 , in paragraph No. 36 and 37 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: 36. The order of the appellate authority demonstrates total non-application of mind. The appellate authority, when the rules require application of mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was bound to assign reasons so as enable the writ court to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do. The expression 'consider' is of some significance. In the context of the rules, the appellate authority was required to see as to whether (i) the procedure laid down in the rules was complied with; (ii) the Enquiry Officer was justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and (iii) whether penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive. 37. In R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 651 , this Court opined: "The word "consider" in Rule 27(2) implies "due application of mind". It is clear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the Appellate Authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the Appellate Authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of clause (c) of Rule 27(2) viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of clause (c) of Rule 27(2) viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director General is liable to be set aside." 7.3 In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. v. Madhusudhan Rao reported in, (2008) 3 SCC 469 , the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph No. 20 as under: 20. 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 interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least 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. 7.4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would also be appropriate for me to quote the well known judgment of the Apex Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab. It was a case where a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file, which order was not communicated. This is how the Apex Court dealt with the effect of the noting by a Minister on a file, AIR 1963 SC 395 (Para No. 9). '9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh ones.' (emphasis supplied) 16. As a result, this writ application is allowed in part. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration and, more particularly, the grounds raised in the memo of the appeal. The First Appellate Authority shall also consider the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, (J.D.), Dhari, which has been referred to above. Let this exercise be under taken at the earliest and completed within two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. The petitioner shall cooperate for effective and expeditious disposal of the matter once again. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.