ORDER : S.K. Gangele, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of orders dated 1.11.2012 (Annexure P.8) and 15.6.2016 (Annexure P-17). He also prayed a relief of grant of Senior Selection Grade scale of pay w. e. f. 1.1.2012. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1994. He was placed in the pay scale of Rs.15,600/- 39,100/- w. e. f. 1.1.2006. Petitioner joined as Additional Superintendent of Police District Bhind on 30.5.2010. He had worked in the aforesaid capacity up to 30.12.2010. He was assigned the job of filing Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the judgment passed in Cr. A. No.61/2010. He was nominated as Officer-In-Charge of the case vide order dated 29.5.2010. 3. On 2.6.2010 the petitioner approached the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior for providing the record of the case. He was not provided record. Thereafter, as per the petitioner he had sent reminders on 18.10.2010 and 6.12.2010. However, the record was not provided to the petitioner. Another person Mr. J. S. Rajput was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, District Bhind. The petitioner handed over the charge to Mr. Rajput on 15.12.2010. Thereafter, Mr. Rajput was nominated as Officer-In-Charge of the case. He had approached the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior on 8.1.2011 and 7.3.2011. The record of the case was provided to him on 8.3.2011. Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court in the year 2012. It was registered as Criminal M.P. 5377-5378 of 2012 (State of M.P. v. Shivrati). There was a delay of 606 days in filing the S. L. P. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court at the time of admission directed the Chief Secretary to hold an inquiry to inquire the reasons for delay of 606 days in filing the S. L. P. 5. Chief Secretary submitted the report before the Apex Court. There was a delay of 606 days in filing the S. L. P. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court at the time of admission directed the Chief Secretary to hold an inquiry to inquire the reasons for delay of 606 days in filing the S. L. P. 5. Chief Secretary submitted the report before the Apex Court. However, the Court was not specified with the report and made following observations vide order dated 3.9.2012 and directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry and identify the persons who were responsible for delay in filing S. L. P. "We regret to say that the Chief Secretary has taken the direction of this Court rather casually and failed to appreciate the spirit of the order, which required him to hold an inquiry and identify at all levels persons responsible for the delay in the filing of the present special leave petitions in this Court. From a perusal of Annexure A to the Report, we find that there was delay of more than one year in making an application for grant of a certified copy of the Judgment passed by the High Court. The report does not set out any reason for the delay in making of the said application or identify the person responsible for the same or the action proposed to be taken against him. Were were inclined to summon the Chief Secretary but before we do so, we give him one more opportunity to hold a detailed inquiry into the matter to identify the persons who are responsible for the delay in the filing of these special leave petitions and in similar other cases that may come to his notice, as also action proposed against them. The Chief Secretary may do the needful within two months from today and submit a report to this Court. Post these special leave petitions after two months." 6. Ultimately SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. On 28.5.2012 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit reply that why an action be not taken against the petitioner. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry in regard to delay in filing SLP. Chief Secretary conducted an inquiry and submitted the report and it was found that the petitioner was also responsible in causing the delay in filing the SLP. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry in regard to delay in filing SLP. Chief Secretary conducted an inquiry and submitted the report and it was found that the petitioner was also responsible in causing the delay in filing the SLP. Hence, why punishment of imposition of three increments with non-cumulative effect be not imposed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 7. Petitioner pleaded that he was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, District Bhind from 12.5.2010 to 30.12.2010, during that period he had filed reply in 26 cases pending before Hon'ble Apex Court. He further pleaded that Collector Bhind nominated him as Officer-In-Charge of the case for filing SLP against the judgment of Criminal Appeal passed by the High Court vide letter dated 29.5.2010. He received the said letter dated 30.5.2010. Thereafter he had written a letter to the office of the Additional Advocate General on 2.6.2010 and demanded record of the case. Petitioner further pleaded that he sent reminders on 18.10.2010 and 6.12.2010 and also visited the office of the Additional Advocate General, Gwalior. However, record of the case was not handed over to him. Thereafter, on account of transfer of the petitioner Mr. Rajput was nominated as OIC of the case and he had filed SLP after receiving the record. Petitioner specifically pleaded that he was not responsible for delay in filing the SLP because he was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police for a period of five months. 8. Under Secretary, Home Department vide order dated 1.11.2012 imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect. It is mentioned in the order that at the level of Additional Superintendent of Police there was delay of 224 days in filing the SLP. The petitioner was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police from 30.5.2010 to 30.12.2010. Petitioner had not taken appropriate steps for filing the SLP. Reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. The Public Service Commission accorded the consent in imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect. Hence, punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner. 9. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal. Reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. The Public Service Commission accorded the consent in imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect. Hence, punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner. 9. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.6.2016 (Annexure P.17), modified the punishment and awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year in place of stoppage of three increments with noncumulative effect. 10. Petitioner pleaded in the writ petition that disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment did not consider the reply filed by the petitioner. Hence, order passed by the disciplinary authority is against the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he explained the reasons in not approaching the office of Standing counsel of the State of Madhya Pradesh at New Delhi because the record was not provided to him by the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior in spite of sending letters and reminders. Hence, the petitioner was not responsible for causing delay in filing the SLP. 11. The respondents in return pleaded that the petitioner was nominated as Officer-In-Charge of the case vide order dated 29.5.2010 for filing the SLP before the Apex Court against the judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Cr. A. No.61/2010. The petitioner had not taken appropriate steps to file SLP within time before the Apex Court. In pursuance to the directions issued by the Apex Court the Chief Secretary conducted the inquiry and found the petitioner responsible, thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his reply, reply was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter an order of punishment was passed. It is further pleaded in the reply that Appellate authority has modified the punishment of the petitioner. Petitioner was also responsible for causing delay in filing the SLP. Hence, the order of the punishment is in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to law and against the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The order of punishment is non-speaking. Hence, the order of the punishment is in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to law and against the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The order of punishment is non-speaking. The reply of the petitioner has not considered by the authority. The order of the appellate authority is also bad in law. The petitioner has been denied Senior Selection Grade on account of imposition of punishment, that action is also arbitrary. 13. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is in accordance with law. 14. Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Rule reads as under: (16) Procedure for imposing minor penalties .- (1) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10 and rule 11shall be made except after,- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour and which it is proposed to be taken, and given him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) Holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) Taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration: (d) Recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior; (e) Consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary 15. Statutory Rules cast duty on the Disciplinary Authority to take in to consideration the representation submitted by the Government servant under Clause 1. 16. Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and other connected petitions reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 has held as under in regard to word "consider" used in Rule 14 of Railway Servant Rules : The word "consider", however, does not bear the meaning placed upon it in Challappan's case. The word "consider" is used in Rule 14 as a transitive verb. The meaning of the word "consider" as so used is given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "To contemplate mentally, fix the mind upon; to think over, meditate or reflect on, bestow attentive thought upon, given heed to, take note of." The relevant definition of the word "consider" given in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is "to reflect on: think about with a degree of care of caution". Below this definition are given the synonyms of the word "consider", these synonyms being "contemplate, study, weigh, revolve, excogitate". While explaining the exact different shades of meaning in this group of words, Webster's Dictionary proceeds to state as under with respect to the word "consider". "Consider often indicates little more than think about. It may occasionally suggest somewhat more conscious direction of thought, somewhat greater depth and scope, and somewhat greater purposefulness." 17. The word "consider" has been used in Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The same meaning could be assigned to the word "consider"mentioned in Rule 14 of Railway Servant Rules. 18. In the present case, the petitioner in his reply to show cause pleaded that after his nomination as Officer-In-Charge of the case by the Collector he had written a letter on 2.6.2010 to the office of Additional Advocate General to provide him record of the case. Thereafter he had sent reminders on 18.10.2010 and 6.12.2010 but record was not provided to him by the office of the Additional Advocate General, Gwalior. The petitioner further mentioned the fact that he had personally contacted the office of Additional Advocate General and thereafter he was transferred and Mr. Rajput had joined as Additional Superintendent of Police District Bhind on 15.12.2010. He further pleaded that although he was transferred and Mr. Rajput joined as Additional Superintendent of Police on 15.12.2010 but he requested the Superintendent of Police to grant fifteen days time, so he could file replies in the cases pending before the Apex Court. Petitioner also pleaded that in the period of the seven months he had filed reply in 26 cases before the Apex Court in which he was nominated as Officer-In-Charge of the case. Petitioner also pleaded that in the period of the seven months he had filed reply in 26 cases before the Apex Court in which he was nominated as Officer-In-Charge of the case. Disciplinary authority in the impugned order of punishment observed that Superintendent of Police in his reply submitted that the petitioner was responsible for causing delay of certain period and reply of the petitioner of show cause was not satisfactory. No reasons have been assigned by the disciplinary authority that why reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory and reasons put forth by the petitioner in the reply to show cause notice was not proper. There is no mention in the order of the punishment that why the office of the Additional Advocate General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior did not provide the record to the petitioner or whether the submission made by the petitioner that he had approached the office of the Additional Advocate General for providing record is true or not. In my opinion, the disciplinary authority has not followed the mandate of Rule 16 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 in passing the order of punishment. Disciplinary authority has also not considered the aforesaid aspect. Hence, the order dated 1.11.2012 (Ann. P.8) passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect and the order dated 15.6.2016 (Ann. P.17), by which the order of imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect has been modified by imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year with non-cumulative effect are contrary to law. The petitioner has been denied the grant of Senior Selection Grade on account of imposition of penalty against the petitioner is also contrary to law. 19. In view of the aforesaid, petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 1.11.2012 (Annexure P.8) and 15.6.2016 (Annexure P-17) are hereby quashed. The order dated 8.5.2013 denying Senior Selection Grade to the petitioner is also quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Senior Selection Grade in accordance with his entitlement considering the fact that order of punishment imposed against the petitioner has been quashed and if the petitioner is found eligible for grant of Senior Selection Grade he be granted arrears of salary also. 20. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Senior Selection Grade in accordance with his entitlement considering the fact that order of punishment imposed against the petitioner has been quashed and if the petitioner is found eligible for grant of Senior Selection Grade he be granted arrears of salary also. 20. Accordingly petition is allowed. No order as to costs.