JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16622 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, a septuagenarian, who has been constrained to approach this Court for yet another round praying inter alia for quashing of Annexures-10, 14 and 16 along with all consequential service and financial benefits. 2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal is that the appellant joined in service in OSEB, which was subsequently converted to CESU. While the appellant was posted as Revenue Cashier in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Kendrapara Electrical Division No.1, Kendrapara on 18.12.1992 the Revenue Divisional Accountant lodged F.I.R. in Kendrapara Police Station on the allegation that cash amounting to Rs. 67,219.35 was stolen from the cash chest in the office which was, reported to him in the morning by the night watchman. After due investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant which has been registered as G.R. Case No. 1219 of 1992 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The said G.R. case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 09.08.1996; against which Government Appeal No. 18 of 1997 was preferred by the State and the said Government Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.03.2001. Again the State went to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition which was registered as Crl. M.P. No. 2601 of 2002 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2002. The appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 21.12.1992 pending drawal of departmental proceeding. The Superintendent Engineer, Electrical Circle, Cuttack on 29.04.1993 issued charge-sheet against the appellant to the effect that he was negligent in duty and committed misconduct, violated the Board's Rule and causing loss to OSEB revenue. In response to the said charge-sheet, the appellant submitted his explanation. An enquiry was conducted against the appellant by Sri K.C. Swain, Executive Engineer, Jagatsinghpur, Electrical Division and held that the appellant and the Revenue Divisional Accountant, Sudarsan Biswal were responsible for the loss caused to the Board. On 02.03.1996 another charge-sheet was issued against the appellant by the Superintendent Engineer, Electrical Circle, Cuttack on the allegation that he had issued three receipts books in favour of Harihara Moharana, J.E. Electrical Section, Pattamundai-II on three different dates without receiving three M.R. Books from Sri Moharana. On 02.03.1996 another charge-sheet was issued against the appellant by the Superintendent Engineer, Electrical Circle, Cuttack on the allegation that he had issued three receipts books in favour of Harihara Moharana, J.E. Electrical Section, Pattamundai-II on three different dates without receiving three M.R. Books from Sri Moharana. Pursuant to the said allegation an enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report in both the cases of theft and regarding issue of money receipt books. The Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 20.12.1999 awarded the punishment against the appellant to which the appellant represented to the Managing Director on 24.05.2000. On 29.05.2000 by the order of the respondent No. 1-Sri Abakash Mohapatra, Team Leader, AES, CESCO was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct the re-enquiry into the charges drawn up against the appellant and respondent No. 1 on 31.07.2000 instructed the Inquiry Officer to furnish his report with findings within thirty days positively. The appellant filed OJC No. 8424 of 2001 before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent No.1 to complete the proceeding prior to his retirement, i.e., before 30.09.2001. Respondent No.1 when came to know about filing of writ petition, on 26.07.2001 being vindictive passed order confirming the punishment imposed by respondent No.3 without issuing any show cause notice on the re-enquiry report. In spite of preferring appeal before respondent No.1 for exoneration from punishment imposed by respondent No.3, he imposed further punishment of depositing Rs.33,609.70 by the appellant, failing which the same shall be realized from him. The aforesaid OJC No. 8424 of 2001 was dismissed by order dated 08.04.2003, against which a review petition has been filed and the same was also dismissed on 22.01.2004. The appellant again went to Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.358-359 of 2005 and those were disposed of on 23.03.2010. The appellant also filed W.P.(C) No. 23161 of 2011 praying to quash all orders of punishment and for all consequential benefits, which was disposed of on 18.07.2013. Ultimately, the appellant on 28.08.2014 taking all the aforesaid averments filed the writ application before this Court which has been registered as W.P(C) No. 16622 of 2014 with a prayer to quash the order under Annexures-10, 14 and 16. 3. Ultimately, the appellant on 28.08.2014 taking all the aforesaid averments filed the writ application before this Court which has been registered as W.P(C) No. 16622 of 2014 with a prayer to quash the order under Annexures-10, 14 and 16. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the observation of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble apex Court and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 23161 of 2011 dated 18.07.2013. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 18.07.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 23161 of 2011 has taken note of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 358-359 of 2005 dated 23.03.2010 which reads as follows: "In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we set aside the impugned orders as well as order enhancing the punishment on this ground alone. It is now open to the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and pass a fresh order in accordance with law." In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order of punishment as well as enhancement of punishment have been quashed and the liberty was given to the respondents for issuance of second show cause notice and after affording opportunity to the appellants the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 23161 of 2011 the impugned orders were passed underAnnexures-10, 14 and 16 of the writ application which are challenged by the appellant in W.P.(C) No. 16622 of 2014 which has been dismissed Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ application, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 23161 of 2011 the impugned orders were passed underAnnexures-10, 14 and 16 of the writ application which are challenged by the appellant in W.P.(C) No. 16622 of 2014 which has been dismissed Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ application, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.09.2013 and the order of the appellate authority dated 15.02.2014 and the order of the Reviewing authority dated 02.05.2014 and the consequential judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.(C) No. 16622 of 2014 are liable to be set aside, on the ground that the appellant has been subjected to undue harassment though similarly placed employee has been exonerated from the said charge and the appellant is entitled to same treatment in the matter of imposition of punishment on the ground of doctrine of parity of treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has been exonerated from the criminal case, which was instituted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the genesis of both the criminal and departmental proceedings are same. But to the utter misfortune, no proceeding was initiated against the Divisional Accountant, who along with the appellant was the custodian of the double locking system of the iron chest from which on the preceding night an amount of Rs. 67,219.35 P. was stolen which was reported by the Night Watch Man. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that assuming the theft has taken place but it could not have been possible without involvement of the Divisional Accountant, since he is one of the custodian of the key of the iron chest. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondents have not properly considered the show cause reply in right prospective and the appellate authority by passing a cryptic order has reiterated the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondents have not properly considered the show cause reply in right prospective and the appellate authority by passing a cryptic order has reiterated the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. 4. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents has however, defended the action of the respondents on the ground that the appellant has been found guilty by the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority by affording all reasonable opportunity and in compliance to the principle of natural justice passed the impugned order of punishment which has been confirmed by the appellate as well as the reviewing authority which do not warrant any interference. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the Disciplinary Proceeding file produced by the learned counsel for the respondents we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 16622 of 2014 needs interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement. (i) Admittedly due to theft of revenue cash the appellant who was the Revenue Cashier was placed under suspension pending drawal of Disciplinary proceeding and simultaneously on the basis of lodging of FIR, criminal case was registered and the appellant was ultimately acquitted from the criminal charges under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, but the appellant has been inflicted with punishment vide order dated 26.09.2013 which has been confirmed by the appellate authority dated 15.02.2014 which are impugned in the W.P.(C) No. 16622 of 2014. (ii) Pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 23161 of 2011 the earlier punishment of the Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority as well as the order passed by the Chairman-cum-C.E.O., CESU were set aside with a direction to the respondents for issuance of second show cause notice and for passing of the appropriate order within three months. In deference to the aforesaid order, second show cause notice was issued on 04.09.2013 for imposition of proposed punishment i.e. three annual increments will be withheld with cumulative effect, the period of suspension will be treated as such cautioning for the past incident. In deference to the aforesaid order, second show cause notice was issued on 04.09.2013 for imposition of proposed punishment i.e. three annual increments will be withheld with cumulative effect, the period of suspension will be treated as such cautioning for the past incident. Pursuant to the second show cause notice the appellant has submitted detailed show cause reply against the proposed punishment. But as it appears from the impugned order dated 29.03.2017, the Disciplinary authority in a very cryptic non-reasoned and facetious manner has imposed the order of punishment, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority dated 15.02.2014 which has also been confirmed by the Reviewing authority dated 02.05.2014. Law is well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re-appreciate the evidence or reappraise the finding of the Enquiry Officer unless there has been procedural irregularity or the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated on the ground of no evidence. (iii) On perusal of the Disciplinary Proceeding file, it appears that there is no procedural irregularities from initiation of disciplinary proceeding till its culmination, but the impugned order of punishment are assailable on the ground that the reply to show cause has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority in proper perspective. Moreover, the appellate authority has not properly appreciated the points raised by the appellant in the appeal. It would be apposite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in (2013) Vol. 6 SCC at page 530 relevant para-19 (Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & others vs. A. Masilamani). "19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. (iv) With regard to imposition of punishment or treatment to be meted out to similarly placed delinquent, it would be profitable to refer to a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 : 2013 (II) OLR (SC) 48 which is quoted herein below: "(9) The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; 'even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences." (v) The appellant is a senior citizen and has been running from pillar to post for more than two decades Though the appellant has been held to be guilty in the Disciplinary proceeding by the Disciplinary Authority but on the very same offences he has been exonerated from the criminal proceeding. Though this court is conscious and cognizant about the fact that both the Disciplinary Proceeding and criminal proceeding stand on the different yardstick i.e., preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt. (vi) Since the genesis of the Disciplinary proceeding originated from the theft of cash and one of the delinquent has been let off there cannot be any justifiable reason to find the present appellant guilty, who has undergone the trauma of litigation for last more than two decades. (vi) Since the genesis of the Disciplinary proceeding originated from the theft of cash and one of the delinquent has been let off there cannot be any justifiable reason to find the present appellant guilty, who has undergone the trauma of litigation for last more than two decades. In order to give a quietus to the suffering to the appellant and keeping in view the aforesaid decision coupled with the factual scenario, while setting aside the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16622 of 2014, we quash the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.06.2013, by the appellate authority dated 15.02.2014 and by the Reviewing Authority dated 02.05.2014. Resultantly, the writ appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.