JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the letter dated 22.6.2015 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner pursuant to the judgment dated 17.3.2015 has been rejected in a most arbitrary manner and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 06.5.2013 whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground that since there is no property of the petitioner at the place of his residence, the residential certificate issued by the competent authority is forged and fabricated. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2010 issued by the respondent authority for the appointment of Constable, the petitioner applied for the same and after due verification and examination he was appointed on the said post and gave his joining on 26.9.2011 at Deoghar. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training for a period of six months at JAP-5, Deoghar and after completing his training successfully, the petitioner was posted at Sonarithandi Police Station Deoghar. Thereafter, all of a sudden on 04.1.2013, a show cause was issued to him stating therein that upon verification the Character certificate submitted by the petitioner, it has been found that the same is forged and fabricated. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause stating specifically that Dinesh Yadav was his father and he is the son of said Dinesh Yadav from his first wife and he was born and brought up at his maternal house. After enquiry, the petitioner was terminated from his service. It has also come on record that a physical verification of the residence was done by the respondent authority, i.e. Sgt. Major, Police Centre, Deoghar along with local Police Inspector and came to know that there is no property in the name of the petitioner or his father on the address given. After termination, the petitioner filed an appeal. It has also come on record that a physical verification of the residence was done by the respondent authority, i.e. Sgt. Major, Police Centre, Deoghar along with local Police Inspector and came to know that there is no property in the name of the petitioner or his father on the address given. After termination, the petitioner filed an appeal. However, his appeal was not considered and the petitioner was forced to file a writ application, which was registered as W.P.(S) No. 5419 of 2013, which was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka to take a decision on appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the appellate order was passed which is Annexure 14 to this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show-cause notice was issued only on the ground that the Character-cum-Residential certificate was declared as forged for the reason that from enquiry it was found that Dinesh Yadav was having only two sons, i.e. Sanjay Yadav and Amarjeet Yadav. However, it is a specific case of the petitioner that he is the son of Dinesh Yadav from his first wife and was born and brought up at his maternal house, so there is no question that the people of the village of Dinesh Yadav will recognize him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was summarily rejected without taking into consideration the contention raised by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner submitting that the petitioner has tried to procure this job on the basis of forged documents and the moment he was asked to appear in the enquiry he absented from duty. She further submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities with the help of local Police Inspector. She further contended that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned order of punishment as well as in the appellate order. 6. She further submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities with the help of local Police Inspector. She further contended that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned order of punishment as well as in the appellate order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure 15, which is said to be sworn by the father of the petitioner, namely Dinesh Yadav, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is also his son. It also appears from the record that the petitioner has raised several grounds in his appeal before the appellate authority but interestingly, the appellate authority has not applied its mind and did not deal with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and simply held that the appeal filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. For proper appreciation of this case, operative portion of the order is quoted herein below: ^^eSaus Hkh lafpdk esa miyC/k lHkh vfHkys[kksa] vkjksfir }kjk lefiZr vihy vH;kosnu] la pkyu inkf/kdkjh ds earO;] xokgksa ds c;ku ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd ds dafMdkokj fVIi.kh dk xgjkbZ ls voyksdu fd;kA voyksduksijkar eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWapk gwWa fd iqfyl v/kh{kd] }kjk fof/kor dkjZokbZ dh xbZ gSA vkjksfir ds mij yxk;s x;s vkjksi Li"V :Ik ls izekf.kr gq, gSaA vkjksfir ds }kjk vihy vH;kosnu ,oa muds }kjk iwoZ esa lefiZr Li"Vhdj.k esa cpko gsrq tks rF; izLrqr fd;s x;s gS og rF;ghu ,oa vi;kZIr gSA vr% iqfyl v/kh{kd] nso?kj }kjk vkjksfir ds fo:) ikfjr n.Mkns'k ls eSa iw.kZr% lger gwWaA vipkjh dks nh x;h ltk vkuqikfrd gS vr% vihy vH;kosnu vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS^^ From perusal of the aforesaid order passed in appeal, it appears that the contention raised by the petitioner has not been dealt with. It is now a well settled principle of law that no matter how grave the offence is, the appellate authority has to deal with the contention raised by the petitioner as held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of DIRECTOR (MARKETING), INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. AND ANOTHER versus SANTOSH KUMAR reported in (2006)11 S.C.C.147, Para 11. “11. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. LTD. AND ANOTHER versus SANTOSH KUMAR reported in (2006)11 S.C.C.147, Para 11. “11. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority shall consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also consider the detailed report of the enquiry officer and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merits. The disciplinary authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place any further material or record before the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the High Court is set aside for the above reason. We also set aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering reinstatement into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The disciplinary authority is also directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.” 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the orders passed in the appeal has been passed without application of mind, as such the impugned order dated 22.6.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this case is disposed of.