JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2012 pertaining to debarring him from promotion for five years being confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 05.04.2013, the captioned writ application has been filed by the petitioner, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 2. The brief facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer under Road Construction Department in the year 1987. While continuing as such in Building Construction Department, memo of charge was framed against the petitioner containing three charges, vide Annexure-1 and in pursuance to the said charges, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence to the charges levelled against him and the inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report holding the Charges 2 and 3 not proved, as evident from Annexure-3 dated 09.11.2011. Basing on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2012 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application, debarring the petitioner from promotion for five years. The petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no. 1 against the said impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. The appellate authority vide order dated 05.04.2013 has been pleased to reject the appeal confirming the order of disciplinary authority vide Annexure-6 to the writ application. Hence, the present writ application has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nilam Tiwari (J.C to Sr. S.C.I), appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned orders of punishment have been passed by the disciplinary authority in violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was not provided with the copy of the inquiry report before passing the impugned order, which has vitiated the whole proceeding causing gross prejudice to the petitioner. On that score, the impugned order of punishment is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that debarring from promotion for five years is a major punishment and prior to infliction of punishment no second show cause notice was issued, thereby procedural irregularity has been occasioned from the very initiation of the proceeding till its culmination. On that score, the impugned order of punishment is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that debarring from promotion for five years is a major punishment and prior to infliction of punishment no second show cause notice was issued, thereby procedural irregularity has been occasioned from the very initiation of the proceeding till its culmination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the charges and findings of the inquiry report, it would be evident that the charge Nos. 2 and 3 have been held to be not proved against the petitioner and Charge No.1 also as it appears from the report of the inquiry, has not been proved. The finding of the disciplinary authority is perverse, because no reason has been assigned as to how the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the inquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders of punishment are disproportionate and not commensurate with the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority has passed a cryptic order, which is not supported by any cogent reasons so as to be sustainable in the eye of law. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 59 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930, which inter alia envisages: “59. In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in rule 49, the appellate authority shall consider- (a) whether the facts on which the order based have been established; (b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and after such consideration shall pass such order as it thinks proper.” 5. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is commensurate to the charges levelled against him and since the Junior Engineer has to prepare detailed project report and hence he has the liability. The inquiry officer has proved the charges levelled against the petitioner were grave in nature, and hence the punishment imposed against the petitioner is justified. The inquiry officer has proved the charges levelled against the petitioner were grave in nature, and hence the punishment imposed against the petitioner is justified. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority due to non-presentation of any evidence or fact which could have minimised or quashed the punishment order. 6. Mrs. Nilam Tiwari, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.I appearing for the State during course of argument has submitted that Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has submitted the allegations of irregularities in Form-Ka against the petitioner for the irregularities committed as Junior Engineer, Building Division, Hazaribagh. Since, the petitioner has wrongly valued the structures made on the land acquired for construction of Garhi Reservoir Scheme, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has recommended to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner in the light of above irregularities. The charges were framed and departmental proceeding was initiated and the disciplinary authority basing on the inquiry report has imposed the punishment of debarring from promotion for five years and the said order has been affirmed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the order of punishment against the petitioner is legal and has been imposed against the petitioner according to Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. Learned counsel for the State further submits that since the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature, the impugned order of punishment is proportionate to the materials available on record and gravity of charges. 7. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the pleadings as well as records, the impugned order of punishment dated 29.09.2012 being affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 05.04.2013 are liable to be interfered with for the reasons stated here in below: (I) The impugned order dated 29.09.2012 has been passed without supplying the copy of the inquiry report, which has vitiated the own proceeding causing gross prejudice to the petitioner. Moreover, prior to infliction of punishment no second show cause notice has been issued, therefore, there has been violation of procedure from the very initiation of proceeding till its culmination. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment dated 29.09.2012 and the order of the appellate authority dated 05.04.2013 are unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. (II) That in pursuance to the charges against the petitioner, the matter was inquired and the inquiry officer submitted his report. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment dated 29.09.2012 and the order of the appellate authority dated 05.04.2013 are unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. (II) That in pursuance to the charges against the petitioner, the matter was inquired and the inquiry officer submitted his report. Out of three charges, as per the inquiry report Charge Nos. 2 and 3 have been held to be not proved against the petitioner. Since, all the charges are interlinked with and Charge nos. 2 and 3 have not been proved, it is but natural that Charge no.1 could not have been proved. Even assuming that charge no. 1 is proved, the impugned order of punishment of debarring from promotion for five years, which is a major punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges and on that score, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be interfered with. (III) On perusal of the order of the appellate authority, it appears that the order of the appellate authority has been passed without any cogent reasons, hence the same being cryptic non-reasoned and bald is liable to be subject to judicial review. In this respect, it would be relevant 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. 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. 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, the impugned orders dated 29.09.2012 being affirmed by the appellate authority dated 05.04.2013 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to start the proceeding from the stage of supply of the inquiry report by giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt/communication of the order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.