JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.06.2012 and the appellate orders dated 14.09.2012 and 18.02.2013, whereby and whereunder a major punishment has been imposed as against the petitioner on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer which are baseless and unfounded in as much as the opinion in the enquiry report has been deduced in a most mechanical manner and without appreciation of the evidence and defense lead on behalf of the petitioner and also on the ground that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is excessive and not proportionate to the charges proved against the present petitioner and also on the ground that the respondents had a biased opinion as against the present petitioner and have prejudged the issue. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28.08.2013 and 17.08.2013 whereby and whereunder the review application filed by the present petitioner pursuant to have been exonerated in the criminal case has been rejected without any application of mind, without considering the fact that the sole ground for initiation of the criminal case against the present petitioner was pendency / filing of the criminal case and there was no other charge against the present petitioner, even then after having been discharged in Cr. Revision No.614 of 2013 the review application filed against the order of termination of the petitioner has been rejected. (iii) Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions as may deem fit and proper. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Mahila Battalion of Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP-10). A departmental proceeding was initiated by framing a memo of charge against her on 22.2.2012. (iii) Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions as may deem fit and proper. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Mahila Battalion of Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP-10). A departmental proceeding was initiated by framing a memo of charge against her on 22.2.2012. The charge against the petitioner is that she was having illicit relationship with one Baijyanath Sahu, husband of Uma Devi, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi who ousted his wife from matrimonial home and that Uma Devi filed a criminal case under Section 498-A and 494 of the IPC, against the said Baijyanath Sahu which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No.24 of 2011, in which a supervision note was given by Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi which held the petitioner guilty on the ground that this petitioner, being the member of discipline force, has acted contrary to departmental discipline. On these allegations, the charge was framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply to the memo of charge. Pursuant thereto, the enquiry report dated 15.06.2012 was submitted by the Inquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued on 19.06.2012, which was duly replied by the petitioner on 23.06.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service on 27.06.2012. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 10.07.2012, which was rejected on 14.09.2012. The petitioner preferred memorial to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 28.09.2012. This memorial/revision was also rejected on 18.02.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty order dated 27.06.2012 is absolutely cryptic. It just mentions the charge and then the order of penalty was passed on the ground that the Inquiry Officer held this petitioner guilty. It does not consider at all, the points raised by the petitioner in reply to the second show cause notice. On this count alone, the order of penalty deserves to be set aside. He further contended that on perusal of the enquiry report dated 15.06.2012, it appears that the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of charges leveled against her as the Inquiry Officer is only a fact finding authority and he does not have power and jurisdiction to hold a delinquent guilty of the charge. He further contended that on perusal of the enquiry report dated 15.06.2012, it appears that the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of charges leveled against her as the Inquiry Officer is only a fact finding authority and he does not have power and jurisdiction to hold a delinquent guilty of the charge. He can merely come to the conclusion as to whether the charges are proved or not. He contended that the whole enquiry report just refers to the criminal case and what happened in the criminal case. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that this petitioner is guilty of the charge. This conclusion of the Inquiry Officer is against the settled principles of law. He further submits that from perusal of the appellate order dated 14.09.2012; it appears that the points which have been raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal, have not been considered appropriately. Merely on the basis of the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. The appellate order, therefore, also deserves to be set aside on this count also. He further submits that so far as criminal case is concerned, this petitioner preferred criminal revision no.614 of 2013, which was allowed on 18.07.2013 by this Court and the petitioner was discharged from the criminal charge. It is well settled that discharge of an accused is as good as acquittal. The submission of the petitioner is that once she has been discharged / acquitted from the criminal case, the impugned penalty order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the whole departmental proceeding is based on criminal case lodged against the petitioner which would be evident from bare perusal of the enquiry report dated 15.06.2012. The submission of the petitioner is that for same set of charges/allegations, the petitioner has been discharged and hence, such order shall prevail in the peculiar facts of the present case over the departmental proceeding. He further submits that adultery is no longer an offence in India. Admittedly, the petitioner has not indulged herself in any such activity during the course of her duty. He further submits that adultery is no longer an offence in India. Admittedly, the petitioner has not indulged herself in any such activity during the course of her duty. For such type of allegation, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner could not have been initiated at all that too on the basis of a criminal case, in which she has been discharged by a competent Court of law. He further submits that the penalty order, which is removal from service, is not commensurate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is a lady. She has worked for years together. Whole service career has remained blemish free. Therefore, the penalty, in any view of the matter, is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct alleged against the petitioner. He concluded that in the light of aforesaid facts, the writ application deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is fit to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 5. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that no procedural error has been committed by the respondent. She further submits that the argument of the learned counsel that the order of removal is not proportionate to the punishment and petitioner should not have removed from service is misconceived. She further submits that punishment of removal from service is not imposed only in the case of fraud or defalcation but even where misconduct committed by a person who holds a position of trust and on whom the society looks forward as a protector of law and in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the respondent-State relied upon a judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Syed Hussain reported in (2006) 3 SCC 173 relevant paragraph is Para16, which is as follows. M“16. Furthermore, the punishment of removal from service is not imposed only in the case of fraud or defalcation of government funds but even where a misconduct is committed by a person who holds a position of trust and on whom the society looks forward as a protector of law and in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate, and thus the same was not even violative of doctrine of proportionality”. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, it appears that the appellate order has been passed without application of mind. On perusal of the appellate order dated 14.09.2012, it appears that the points which have been raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal have not been considered appropriately. Merely on the basis of conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. Now it is well settled that the appellate authority cannot simply adopt language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. In the case of Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para-19 as under: “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. 7. In the case in hand, the petitioner had taken several grounds in her memo of appeal (Annexure-10), but unfortunately, in just two lines the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. As such, without adverting to the other contentions/arguments adduced by the parties; only on the question that the appellate order being cryptic and non-speaking which does not deal with any of the contentions / grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned order of appeal dated 14.09.2012 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order after discussing all the grounds raised by the petitioner in her memo of appeal. It is made clear that the order must be passed by the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the order of punishment dated 27.06.2012 shall be deemed to be revoked and petitioner will be reinstated in service. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of.