JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, this Court will notice that the case of the petitioner, in short, is that along with the Sub Divisional Officer (for brevity, SDO), Dhaka, he had conducted the enquiry leading to action against Public Distribution System Dealers (for brevity, PDS Dealers), namely, Tej Narayan Singh and Ramashankar Singh of Village – Bakhri Hari of Dhaka Block. It is the petitioner’s case that being victimized by the said persons, false allegations were levelled against the petitioner regarding demand of illegal gratification and on that premise, he was arrested by the Vigilance. A first information report was instituted bearing Vigilance Police Station Case No 29 of 2012 under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act subsequent upon the petitioner’s arrest on 23.03.2013. 3. On the same charges, Prapatra Ka came to be issued and proceedings were sought to be conducted against the petitioner by letter dated 01.03.2013 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar. Before the authorities, the petitioner pleaded that he was being victimized due to the action he had taken against the said PDS Dealers. The Enquiry Officer called for a report from the SDO, Sikrahana, Dhaka so as to verify the petitioner’s apprehension. The SDO has submitted his report dated 12.04.2013 wherein he has affirmed the petitioner’s allegations. The SDO has specifically communicated to the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was a part of the Enquiry Team making enquiries against the PDS Dealers on 21.12.2011. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Enquiry Officer has found the apprehension of the petitioner to be true in his Enquiry Report. The SDO has specifically communicated to the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was a part of the Enquiry Team making enquiries against the PDS Dealers on 21.12.2011. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Enquiry Officer has found the apprehension of the petitioner to be true in his Enquiry Report. He has specifically observed thus: vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] fldjguk dk i=kad 117 fnukad 12-4-13 ,oa fuyafcr iz[k.M vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh dk Li"Vhdj.k Hkonh; lsok esa fu.kZ; ysus gsrq miLFkkfir fd;k tk jgk gSA D;ksafd ;g ekeyk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ds fopkjk/khu gS] vr% bl ij vuq'kalk djuk lehphu izrhr ugha gksrk gSA Jh ujsUnz izlkn iz[k.M vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh dk ;g dFku lR; gS fd ifjoknh Jh rst ukjk;.k flag ds nqdku dh tkWp buds }kjk dh xbZ Fkh ,oa Jh jke'kadj flag ds nqdku dh tkWp ds le; os vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] fldjguk ds lkFk mifLFkr Fkas] vr% nwdku tkWp djus dk dkj.k Hkh ifjokfn;ksa ds izfr'kks/k ds dkj.k gks ldrk gSA 5. Having considered the aforesaid fact, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his recommendation that no further action is warranted till conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Ignoring all the aforesaid facts and without considering the fact that no other material was produced in the enquiry so as to sustain the charges against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 15.05.2014, has inflicted the punishment of termination of service against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid findings on the grounds noticed above as also the ground that the proceedings were initiated de novo without recording any grounds for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report dated 23.08.2013. 7. This Court, in the earlier writ proceedings arising out of CWJC No 5628 of 2014, had disposed of the petitioner’s writ petition since the statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The appellate order has, thereafter, been passed. The same is dated 17.08.2015 and the same has been challenged in the instant proceedings along with the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 8. On going through the appellate order dated 17.08.2015, this Court, is constrained to observe that there appears to be a total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. The appellate order has, thereafter, been passed. The same is dated 17.08.2015 and the same has been challenged in the instant proceedings along with the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 8. On going through the appellate order dated 17.08.2015, this Court, is constrained to observe that there appears to be a total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. In fact, the Appellate Authority has not considered any of the submissions raised by the petitioner and, in a few lines, disposed of such a vital claim of the petitioner having such severe consequences. Though the Appellate Authority has taken note of the various submissions made by the petitioner but the conclusions show no consideration of the said submission raised by the petitioner. The order is in gross violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, relevant extract of which is reproduced herein below: “27. Consideration of appeal.- (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in view of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke or modify the order accordingly. … … …” 9. Non-consideration of the petitioner’s appeal has resulted in the termination order being sustained by the Appellate Authority. No reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Authority nor have the various submissions, which have been made by the petitioner, been considered. Even the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report dated 23.03.2013, relying upon the report submitted by the SDO dated 12.04.2013, has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. 10. It is to be noted that the Authority, which is deciding such relevant issue have such severe consequence, is under an obligation to consider the same and pass a reasoned order. Non-assigning of reasons and disposal of the petitioner’s appeal by an arbitrary and cryptic order, as has been done in the instant case by the Appellate Authority under order dated 17.08.2015, cannot be sustained. 11. In this connection, this Court would refer to the judgment in the case of Hassan Muzahid Versus The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors, 2015 (4) PLJR (HC) 435. 11. In this connection, this Court would refer to the judgment in the case of Hassan Muzahid Versus The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors, 2015 (4) PLJR (HC) 435. Though in the said case, the stage of the enquiry was different but none the less the law regarding consideration of the issues, and importance of assigning reasons is applicable in the instant case in respect of the decision taken by the Appellate Authority which is dated 17.08.2015. 12. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider the entire issue raised by the petitioner. 13. It would be open to the petitioner to make a comprehensive appeal so as to consolidate all these points at one place to facilitate the disposal of the appeal. Such appeal may be submitted before the Appellant Authority within a period of four weeks from today. In case, such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority would be obliged to consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks thereafter.