ORDER : 1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 and the appellate order dated 29.12.2015. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on 14.10.1986 to the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. While posted as Accounts Clerk under Road Division, Deoghar he was served the order of transfer dated 12.02.2009 and he was relieved on 14.02.2009 for joining at his transferred post at Hazaribagh. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him by serving a chargememo dated 22.07.2010 in Prapatra 'K'. The charge framed against the petitioner is, that in disobedience of the government order he did not handover complete charge on account of which work under Finance and Audit Divisions suffered. The enquiring officer submitted a report on 20.08.2010 which has formed foundation for the penalty order dated 25.02.2011. This order was affirmed by the appellate authority by an order dated 11.02.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1478 of 2013, the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 18.11.2013 with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of service of the second show-cause notice. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.04.2014 to which he submitted his reply on 19.05.2014. The disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of 'Censor' to the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2014. By the said order the petitioner was also denied full salary and allowances except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. This order has been affirmed by the appellate authority by rejecting the appeal on 29.12.2015. 3. Contending that the findings recorded by the departmental authorities while inflicting punishment upon the petitioner are contrary to their own stand as reflected in letter dated 20.01.2011, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against the petitioner is based on “no evidence”. Referring to the Memorandum of Appeal dated 13.04.2015 filed by the petitioner challenging the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 it is contended that the appellate order discloses complete non-application of mind in as much as the appellate authority has failed to consider the specific plea taken by the petitioner for challenging the penalty order dated 17.10.2014. 4. As against the above, Mr. Binod Singh, the learned S.C. (L&C) submits that the findings recorded by the departmental authorities are not open to challenge in a writ proceeding. 4. As against the above, Mr. Binod Singh, the learned S.C. (L&C) submits that the findings recorded by the departmental authorities are not open to challenge in a writ proceeding. The departmental proceeding against the petitioner was conducted following the extant rules and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and while so, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ Court would not interfere with the impugned orders. To support his contention the learned State counsel has referred to the decision in Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 . 5. Powers of the writ Court to issue certiorari has been examined by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob vs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477 . A writ of certiorari would lie against an order of punishment if it has been passed in breach of the extant rules or in violation of the rules of natural justice, and normally the writ Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authority. However, if the findings recorded in a departmental proceeding are found contrary to the materials on record, such findings would become perverse and thus warrant interference of the writ Court. Specific charge framed against the petitioner is that he did not hand over the complete charge. The department has alleged that on account of the aforesaid misconduct by the petitioner work under the Finance and Audit Divisions suffered. In the Enquiry Report dated 20.08.2010, the enquiring officer has narrated the circumstances under which the petitioner was relieved from duty. The transfer order dated 12.02.2009 was served upon the petitioner in the night at 9.00 p.m. and on 14.02.2009 he was relieved from duty. The enquiring officer has observed that sufficient time was not provided to the petitioner for handing over the files and articles under his control. He has found the procedure adopted by the department by which the petitioner was relieved from duty not fair. 6. Now, it stands admitted that the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 has been passed in ignorance of letter dated 20.01.2011 which was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Deoghar in response to a specific query made vide letter dated 04.01.2011, whether any bank-guarantee was in custody of the petitioner. 6. Now, it stands admitted that the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 has been passed in ignorance of letter dated 20.01.2011 which was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Deoghar in response to a specific query made vide letter dated 04.01.2011, whether any bank-guarantee was in custody of the petitioner. It has been reported that the petitioner was not in charge of the Iron Chest and no bank-guarantee was under his custody. The allegation that the work has suffered is on the assumption that bank-guarantees were kept in the Chest which due to not handing over the complete charge by the petitioner could not be renewed in time. This assumption stands falsified in view of the report dated 20.01.2011. In the first instance in the penalty order which was passed on 25.02.2011 the disciplinary authority has taken note of this letter dated 20.01.2011, however, after the remand by this Court when W.P. (S) No. 1478 of 2013 was allowed, the disciplinary authority has ignored this letter and the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of 'Nindan' vide order dated 17.10.2014. Letter dated 20.01.2011 was not before the enquiring officer when he submitted the enquiry report on 20.08.2010, however, it became part of the materials in the departmental proceeding when the disciplinary authority in its order dated 25.02.2011 took note of this report. In fact, the impugned penalty order dated 17.10.2014 is solely based on the fact that inventory of 89 documents was prepared by breaking open the almirah allegedly in the custody of the petitioner, but on this no finding has been recorded by the enquiring officer. No witness was examined by the department in support of this charge and it has not been proved who was in custody of those documents. In the circumstances narrated hereinabove the evidence produced against the petitioner by the department in support of the charge framed against him that he did not hand over complete charge and consequently work under Finance and Audit Divisions had suffered turns out to be a case of 'no evidence'. The disciplinary authority has adopted a procedure for arriving at the conclusion, that the charge against the petitioner stands proved, which obviously was erroneous and consequently the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 renders unsustainable. The disciplinary authority has adopted a procedure for arriving at the conclusion, that the charge against the petitioner stands proved, which obviously was erroneous and consequently the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 renders unsustainable. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have been ignored by the appellate authority and it has also failed to take note of the report dated 20.01.2011 when appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 29.12.2015. In the Memorandum of Appeal the petitioner has raised a specific plea founded on the report contained in letter dated 20.01.2011 and as noticed above this letter was referred to by the disciplinary authority in its order dated 25.02.2011 still, the appellate authority has failed to consider the report submitted by the Executive Engineer through the said letter which completely exonerates the petitioner of the charge of hampering of the work on account of not handing over complete charge. The appellate order is a cryptic order and is liable to be quashed for the aforesaid reasons. The facts in Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran are entirely different from the facts of the present case. 7. In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 and the appellate order dated 29.12.2015, these are quashed. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.