JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the State. 2. Charge memo dated 29.09.1999(Praptra Kha) was served on the petitioner. The two allegations made against the petitioner were that when an order of transfer dated 24.03.1999 was served on the petitioner and he was relieved then in retaliation to the same he misbehaved with the District Stastical Officer and abused him with filthy language and threatened to kill him outside the office on the same very date. The other allegation is of unauthorized absence from 06.02.1999 to 13.03.1999. 3. The petitioner has alleged that it is a case of his false implication as the District Stastical Officer was acting malafide against the petitioner. He further submits that inadmissible evidence in the form of deposition of witnesses who were not concerned with the incident has been taken into consideration by the Presenting Officer. He submits that alleged period of unauthorized absence i.e. 06.02.1999 to 13.03.1999 was unsustainable inasmuch as during said period the employees enmasse including the petitioner were on strike. 4. He submits that the defence raised by him before the Enquiry Officer has not been considered and the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 18.12.2000 on the basis of surmises and conjectures and found the charges to be proved. 5. Even though all the aforesaid submissions were urged before the Disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority by a cryptic order dated 06.06.2001 has accepted the enquiry report without considering the various assertions raised by the writ petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition. The writ petition was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 8636 of 2001. The same was disposed off in view of the pendency of statutory appeal before the appellate authority. The specific direction by this court was that the appellate authority shall consider the questions of law and dispose off the appeal within a period of six weeks. The appeal was disposed off pursuant thereto by a cryptic order similar to that as the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Once again the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition. The same was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1533 of 2003. 7. The appeal was disposed off pursuant thereto by a cryptic order similar to that as the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Once again the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition. The same was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1533 of 2003. 7. Counsel for the State has tried to sustain the order of the appellate authority by saying that the same has been passed in light of the directions issued in C.W.J.C. No 1533 of 2003. 8. This Court vide order dated 17.04.2003 in the said C.W.J.C. No. 1533 of 2003 has observed that the order of dismissal from service is the extreme penalty and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate forum to rehear the appeal after due notice to the petitioner and to pass speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioner has submitted his detailed submissions before the appellate authority on 12.07.2003. The same is annexure 22 of the instant writ petition. Once again the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 27.10.2003 has disposed off the appeal by a cryptic order. 9. Regarding the punishment of dismissal from service being disproportionate, the appellate authority in paragraph nos. 7 and 9 of the appellate order specifically concluded that even if the charges are proved then such punishment would not be sustainable and would be disproportionate to the charges. The appellate authority has considered the fact that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, relying upon the petitioner’s past performance he has come to a definite conclusion that the punishment order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges even if the charges are taken to be established and has found the punishment unsustainable. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, relying upon the petitioner’s past performance he has come to a definite conclusion that the punishment order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges even if the charges are taken to be established and has found the punishment unsustainable. 10. All other contentions raised by the petitioner have been decided by one paragraph order specifically paragraph 8 of the order which reads as follows : ^^nksuksa gh i{kksa dks lquus ds ckn foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh ewy lafpdk dh Hkh ,d ckj iqu% leh{kk dh x;hA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu rFkk muds le{k fn;s x;s lk{;ksa dks Hkh ns[kk x;kA ;g lgh gS fd dqN izklafxd O;fDr;ksa ds lk{; lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk ugh fy;s x;sA ;g Hkh gks ldrk gS fd izLrqfrdj.k inkf/kdkjh mUgsa lk{kh ds :Ik esa ugh yk;sa gksaA fQj Hkh tks fu”d"kZ lapkyu inkf/kdkjh us fudkyk gS] fcYdqy gh rF;ksa ls ijs ugha crk;k tk ldrkA^^ 11. Perusal of the aforesaid paragraph 8 of the order of the appellate authority shows that there is no definite affirmation of the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The conclusion which has been arrived at is not a definite finding and is based on conjectures. However, he has proceeded to impose the punishment of withholding of five annual increments without cumulative effect and denying payments other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension i.e., upto the order of the appellate authority i.e. 27.10.2003 when the petitioner’s suspension has been revoked. 12. In so far as the findings of the Appellate Authority favourable to the petitioner regarding the dismissal being disproportionate to the charges, no grievance is raised and therefore, to that extent the order of the appellate authority requires no interference. 13. In view of the said findings, the petitioner continues in service of the respondents. However, to the extent that the appellate authority has upheld the order of the disciplinary authority without reference to any material and without assigning any reasons in support of the conclusion, this Court would observe that the same is not sustainable. The various assertions made before the appellate authority have been taken note of in paragraphs 2-5 of the impugned order. The various assertions made before the appellate authority have been taken note of in paragraphs 2-5 of the impugned order. However, without dealing with any of the assertions and without assigning any reasons in support of the conclusion, the order modifying the punishment to withholding of five annual increments without cumulative effect and to deprive the petitioner of his benefits other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, is legally unsustainable to that extent as the same shows total non-consideration of the petitioner’s appeal and the conclusions are perverse. 14. It is needless to say that assigning of reasons is an essential function of such authorities which are performing an adjudicatory function as the same excludes the scope of arbitrariness. The importance of assigning reasons has been reiterated by this Court and the Apex Court on various occasions. Reasons for the decisions have to be stated, otherwise the decision would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The requirement to give reasons in adjudicatory orders is of the essence and goes to the root of the order. When no reasons are given by the concerned authorities (as in the instant case by the appellate authority), in support of the order made by it, the same is indicative of non-application of mind by the authorities to the matter in question. The appellate authority has totally failed to take into consideration the grounds pleaded by the petitioner in his appeal as no reasons have been assigned dealing with the grounds urged before the appellate authority. 15. The importance of assigning reasons has been reiterated time and again by this Court and the Apex Court Such non-speaking order is unsustainable in law. 16. In this connection this Court would refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. Collector reported in 2012 (4) SCC 407 wherein the established legal principles of recording of reasons so as to ensure compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and fairness and to exclude arbitrariness, has been reiterated with reference to the earlier judgments which have been discussed therein. 17. The order to the extent it imposes withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect and to deprive the petitioner of his benefits other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension are clearly legally unsustainable and are hereby quashed. 17. The order to the extent it imposes withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect and to deprive the petitioner of his benefits other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension are clearly legally unsustainable and are hereby quashed. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.