JUDGMENT : A. Lodh, J. Since common questions of fact & law are involved in both the writ appeals, with consent of the parties, these are decided by the present order. 2. By means of these intra-court appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 28.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 242 of 2009 and WP(C) 164 of 2010 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge did not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority with affirmation by the Appellate Authority imposing penalty of reduction of pay scale to the lowest stage to Rs.4200/-, in the time scale of pay Rs.4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650/- in respect of writ appellant, Sri Dilip Kumar Datta; and Rs.3,200/-, in the time scale of pay Rs.3200-90-4280-100-5480-110-6030/- in respect of writ appellant, Sri Makhan Lal Dey with cumulative effect till the appellants could be found fit by the disciplinary authority to be allowed to earn increment from that stage. 3. A common disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant Sri Dilip Kumar Datta, a Forester under the department of Forest and other two persons namely Makhan Lal Dey (appellant of WA No.63/2014), Forest Guard and Amal Laskar, Mali-cum-Watcher under Rule 14 of the CCS & CCA Rules,1965. The article of charges against the appellant-delinquents and Sri Amal Laskar were framed which are reproduced below: “Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sh. Dilip Dutta, Forester, Sh. Makhan Lal Dey, FG and Sh. Amal Laskar, MCW of the Forest Department, Govt. of Tripura. Article : I That Sh. Dilip Dutta, Forester while functioning as Range Assistant, Dharmanagar was found unable to take care of himself under influence of intoxicating drink & appeared at the place of his employment in a state of intoxication during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003. Such behavior on the part of a Government employee is most unbecoming involving violation of Rule 3(1)(iii), 22(b) & (d) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Article: II That while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sh. Dutta, Forester during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003 behaved in a most disorderly manner by using abusive language at a senior Officer of the Department namely Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO Kanchanpur at the Forest Rest House, Dharmanagar and even attempted physical assault on him. Article: II That while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sh. Dutta, Forester during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003 behaved in a most disorderly manner by using abusive language at a senior Officer of the Department namely Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO Kanchanpur at the Forest Rest House, Dharmanagar and even attempted physical assault on him. Such disorderly behavior on the part of a Government employee amounts to violation of Rule 3(1) (ii) & (iii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Article: III That while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sh. Dutta, Forester during the course of his duty on 03/03/2003 disturbed peace at the place of his employment under influence of intoxicating drinks and behaved rudely once again with Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO, Kanchanpur in the Range Officer’s Chamber and even prevented him from making phone calls. Such behavior on the part of a Government employee is most unbecoming involving gross violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) and 22(b) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Article : IV That Sh. Makhan Lal Dey, FG and Sh. Amal Laskar, MCW while functioning under Dharmanagar Range acted in most unbecoming manner by resorting to disorderly behavior, subversive of discipline, during the course of their duty on 03/03/2003 by joining hands & abetting others to cause physical as well as mental assault on Sh. Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO, Kanchanpur. Such behavior on the part of Government employees are most unbecoming involving violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.” 4. Mr. K. Chakraborty, TJS Gr.-II, Additional Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was appointed as the inquiry authority/inquiry officer to take up the inquiry. In course of inquiry, the department has relied on some documents which have been exhibited as Exhibit S1 to S8. In the inquiry, out of 11 listed witnesses, the first inquiring authority, Mr. K. Chakraborty examined 7(seven) witnesses. Later on, the second inquiring authority, namely, Mr. G.R. Paul was appointed. He re-examined, the complainant-victim Sri Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO(P.W.2) and also examined rest of the 4(four) witnesses to prove the charges. So, all the 11 witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the appellant-delinquents. 5. The delinquents in their turn adduced no evidence. K. Chakraborty examined 7(seven) witnesses. Later on, the second inquiring authority, namely, Mr. G.R. Paul was appointed. He re-examined, the complainant-victim Sri Sailendra Singh, IFS, DFO(P.W.2) and also examined rest of the 4(four) witnesses to prove the charges. So, all the 11 witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the appellant-delinquents. 5. The delinquents in their turn adduced no evidence. However, by filing defence statement as well as in course of cross-examination of P.Ws 1 to 7, the delinquent Sri Dilip Datta, Forester stated that Sri Sailendra Singh, DFO (P.W.2) on his arrival at Dharmanagar Forest Range Office/Rest House ordered Sri Datta to bring a bottle of whiskey and also to arrange other things necessary for his entertainment as he would stay for the night in the Rest House. But Sri Datta refused to oblige Sri Singh to supply the materials as per his demand and, therefore, Sri Singh got irritated and instituted a false criminal case against him. The other delinquents stated that they tried to resist Mr. Singh from giving blows and kicks by holding his hands and therefore, Mr. Singh entangled them in false case. 6. After receipt of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority issued notices to the delinquents proposing penalty being found guilty and the delinquents responded to show-cause notice in writing. 7. Considering the inquiry report and the representation of the delinquents, in the case of Sri Dilip Datta, Forester, the disciplinary authority passed the following order of punishment: “ **** **** **** **** **** **** **** I, the Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of all aspect of the case, take a lenient view and order to inflict the proposed penalty order issued vide No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/23528-31 dated 24.11.2008 of reduction of his pay to the lowest stage to Rs.4,200/-in the time scale of pay Rs.4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650/-with cumulative effect till he is found fit by the Disciplinary Authority to be allowed to earn increment from this stage i.e. the lowest stage of time scale of pay. It is further directed that Shri Dilip Kumar Datta, Forester will not earn any increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay.” In the case of Sri Makhan Lal Dey, Forest Guard, the disciplinary authority imposed the following punishment :- “**** **** **** **** **** **** **** I, the Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of all aspect of the case, take a lenient view and order to inflict the proposed penalty order issued vide No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/23532-35 dated 24.11.2008 of reduction of his pay to the lowest stage to Rs.3,200/-in the time scale of pay Rs.3200-90-4280-100-5480-110-6030/-with cumulative effect till he is found fit by the Disciplinary Authority to be allowed to earn increment from this stage i.e. the lowest stage of time scale of pay. It is further directed that Shri Makhan Lal Dey, Forest Guard will not earn any increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay.” 8. Both the delinquents preferred appeal against the order of penalty as observed above, before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Forest Department and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal compelling them to file writ petitions challenging the order of the penalty as stated above, passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition being devoid of merit. 9. Challenging the legality of the penalty imposed upon the writ appellants as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the delinquent-appellants has advanced his argument on three following points: (i) The delinquent-appellants have been acquitted of the charge framed against them in criminal trial. (ii) Non-supply of the report of the preliminary inquiry vitiates the entire proceeding. (iii) The order of the appellate authority dismissing the representation of the delinquent-appellants is cryptic in nature and passed in violation of the provision of Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules,1965. 10. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has referred the following case laws in support of his submission: (i). (1986) 3 SCC 103 (Ram Chander Vrs. Union of India & Ors.). (ii). 10. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has referred the following case laws in support of his submission: (i). (1986) 3 SCC 103 (Ram Chander Vrs. Union of India & Ors.). (ii). (2011) 8 SCC 695 (Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr. Vrs. R.K. Uppal). 11. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-respondents has defended the penalty as well as the judgment and order dated 28.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge. In respect of his contention, he has relied on the following case laws: (i). AIR 1966 SC 1827 (State of Madras Vrs. A. R. Srinivasan). (ii). (2014) 3 SCC 610 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vrs. Sankar Ghosh). (iii). (2005) 7 SCC 764 (Ajit Kumar Nag Vrs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Haldia & Ors.). (iv). AIR 2011 SC 1931 (State Bank of Bikaner and jaipur Vrs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya). (v). AIR 2010 SC 137 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vrs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Ors.). (vi). WP(C) No.456/2014 (Md. Rafik Uddin Vrs. The State of Tripura & Ors.). 12. On the backdrop of the aforesaid three issues raised by Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel, this Court will decide the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge as well as the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority reducing the pay scale of the delinquent-appellants to the lowest stage with cumulative effect as observed above. 13. Firstly, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel submits that both the appellants have been acquitted by the Criminal Court after a thorough trial as the charges framed against them has not been proved. As such, they also should be exonerated from the articles of charges framed by the department concerned. To decide this point of argument, we are of the opinion that in a catena of decisions the Apex Court and various High Courts held that the acquittal from the charges by the Criminal Court will not exonerate the delinquent employee automatically. The standard of proof in a criminal trial and in a departmental inquiry is different. In the criminal trial the Court wants conclusive proof beyond any shadow of doubt but the departmental proceeding is decided on “preponderance of probability”. The standard of proof in a criminal trial and in a departmental inquiry is different. In the criminal trial the Court wants conclusive proof beyond any shadow of doubt but the departmental proceeding is decided on “preponderance of probability”. Further, if one is held to be guilty in a criminal trial, he has to suffer imprisonment, but, if one is held guilty of charge in the departmental proceeding, he has to face penalty either minor or major. Accordingly, we hold that acquittal of an accused by a Criminal Court will not absolve the same accused facing departmental proceeding and the acquittal or discharge in a criminal proceeding shall not be a bar to award punishment/penalty in a departmental proceeding, even if, both the proceedings were conducted on the same set of charges or in respect of the same cause or matter. Consequently, the first line of argument of Mr. Roy Barman is repelled. 14. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the similar argument before him also held that acquittal by a criminal Court would have no bearing upon the disciplinary authority to proceed with the departmental proceeding and if found guilty the delinquents may be punished by way of imposing major or minor penalty and having held so the learned Single Judge has rejected the submission made on behalf of the present appellants, which, according to us does not call for interference. Hence, the first point has been decided against the appellants. 15. In the second fold of argument to support second point as formulated above, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel submits that non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report to the delinquent-appellants amounts to violation of principles of natural justice vitiates the proceeding. To find out the merits of this argument, we have gone through the records. But the records reveal that neither in the pleadings made in the writ petition nor this plea was taken before the inquiring authority. More so, the delinquent-appellants never submitted any application during the course of inquiry to furnish the copy of the preliminary inquiry report to them. In furtherance thereof, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel, has failed to convince this court as to how the non-supply of the preliminary report caused prejudice to the delinquent-appellants. More so, the delinquent-appellants never submitted any application during the course of inquiry to furnish the copy of the preliminary inquiry report to them. In furtherance thereof, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel, has failed to convince this court as to how the non-supply of the preliminary report caused prejudice to the delinquent-appellants. The learned Single Judge has also considered this submission advanced before him by the learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners-appellants herein but discarded the same with reasons. Having found any infirmity, we find no reason to interfere with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the second point is decided against the delinquent-appellants. 16. Thirdly, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel submits that the appellate authority ought to have been disposed of the appeal with a reasoned order. He further submits that the order passed by the appellate authority is badly suffered from non-application of mind. 17. We have carefully scrutinized the order of the appellate authority (Annexure-20 to the writ petition) which is reproduced hereunder, for convenience: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA FOREST DEPARTMENT No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/ Dated the _th May, 2009 ORDER This pertains to an appeal petition dated 08-04-2009 filed by Shri Dilip Kr. Datta, Forester of Forest Department against the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura) vide No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/31,591-95 dated 25-02-09. 2. I have gone through the appeal and do not find any new facts or circumstances brought out by Shri Dilip Kr. Datta, Forester in his appeal and all the issue raised by him have been adequately dealt with by the Department. 3. The undersigned in exercise of the power of Appellate Authority holds that the appeal petition submitted by Shri Dilip Kr. Datta, Forester lacks merit and the impugned penalty order No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/31,591-95 dated 25-02-09 of the Disciplinary Authority (Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura) stands. 4. The appeal petition is rejected. 5. Let a copy of the order be delivered to the Appellant. (Shashi Prakash) Chief Secretary Government of Tripura, (Appellate Authority)” 18. Showing the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing submits that on the face of the order it reveals that being an unreasoned order it suffers from non-application of mind and against the spirit of law as enshrined in Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. Showing the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing submits that on the face of the order it reveals that being an unreasoned order it suffers from non-application of mind and against the spirit of law as enshrined in Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. It leads us to take note of Rule 27 which is reproduced here-in-below, for convenience: “27. Consideration of appeal (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 10 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the Appellate Authority shall consider - (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders - (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of these case.” 19. From a close reading of Rule 27(2)(b), it clearly envisages that the appellate authority should pass orders taking into the note that the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record. According to this Court, the mandate of law should be the paramount consideration to the appellate authority while deciding a representation preferred before him against the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority, which would provide some sort of justification by way of discussion of evidence, though, not in an elaborate form. According to this Court, the mandate of law should be the paramount consideration to the appellate authority while deciding a representation preferred before him against the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority, which would provide some sort of justification by way of discussion of evidence, though, not in an elaborate form. But, we did not find a little bit of discussion of evidence which warrants the appellate authority to uphold or affirm the impugned order of penalty dated 25.02.2009, passed by the disciplinary authority (Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura). Simply stating that he has gone through the appeal and did not find anything new facts or circumstances brought out by the delinquent is not the compliance of the mandate of law. We reiterate that discussion, even if, in shorter form is a sine qua non to justify the compliance of the requirements of Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. 20. Furthermore, it is apposite to take a note of Rule 11 of CCS & CCA Rules which deals with the provisions for awarding penalties and stipulates that penalties to be imposed by giving good and sufficient reasons. The appeal is being a continuation of the proceeding, an obligation casts upon the appellate authority also to give reasons in the spirit of Rule 11 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. According to us, both Rule 11 and Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules are to be read and considered conjointly and harmoniously. Further, the doctrine of equity, fairness and reasonableness demands every action of the executives must be founded on reasons and due application of mind. Further, it is quite discernible that the concerned delinquents should know the reason why his appeal did not favour being the departmental appeal a fact finding, appellate authority keeping in view of R.27 has mandated to apprise the record of enquiry including the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority and an appraisal of the record of enquiry to assign its own reasons and to examine that the penalty must commensurate the nature & seriousness of allegation which is to be inflicted upon the delinquent. 21. 21. The learned Single Judge has observed in his judgment that the appellate authority has adequately discussed and considered the departmental appeal in terms of Rule 27(1) of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 and is conformity with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Vrs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1986) 3 SCC 103 . But in view of the discussions made above, we respectfully disagree with the observation of the learned Single Judge that the appeal filed before the appellate authority has been adequately dealt with. We, accordingly, hold that the order passed by the appellate authority does not fulfill the essential requirements of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 22. We have gone our conscious look to the order passed by the appellate authority wherefrom we are satisfied that the nature of the order does not fulfill the essential requirements of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. It is well entrenched principle of law that assigning of reason is an integral part of the administration of justice. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge in respect of the order passed by the appellate authority. According to us, the appellate authority should deal with the contentions raised by the delinquent in the appeal and that will only fulfill the requirements of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 as well as the true interpretation of the case of Ram Chander (Supra) where the Apex Court has held that the appeal disposed of by the appellate authority without assigning any reason was not appreciable and hence, remanded the matter to the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal afresh. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS IN WA NO.62/2014 23. The analysis undertaken as hereinabove qua Rules 11 and 27 of CCS & CCA Rules has persuaded us to hold that the order passed by the appellate authority being cryptic and without any reasons, suffers from non-application of mind vis-à-vis runs contrary to see statutory mandate and thus, calls for interference. Accordingly, the order of the appellate authority vide reference No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/dated Nil is set aside and we remit the matter back to the appellate authority to revisit the appeal preferred by Sri Dilip Kr. Accordingly, the order of the appellate authority vide reference No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003/dated Nil is set aside and we remit the matter back to the appellate authority to revisit the appeal preferred by Sri Dilip Kr. Datta, and examine it afresh, in the light of our observations as discussed above. The Writ Appeal No.62/2014 is allowed to the extent as indicated above. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS IN WA NO.63/2014 24. As both the appeals before us have arisen from a common judgment, we have perused the order passed by the appellate authority in the case of Makhan Lal Dey, the appellant in WA 63/2014 and we find that the appellate authority has dealt with the matter in detail where his due application of mind is manifest being discussed the evidence on record. According to us the order dated Nil vide reference No.F.19(569)/Vig/For-2003 satisfies the principles we have discussed here-in-above and fulfills the parameters of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. Hence, the challenge of the findings of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the writ appellant, Makhan Lal Dey herein does not call for interference and the instant writ appeal No.63/2014 is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. 25. Both the appeals accordingly as indicated above, stands disposed.