ORDER : 1. The appellate order of punishment is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner who was appointed on 06th September 1977 on the post of Forester was served a charge-memo on 14th July 1992 containing allegations that in the year 1986 and 1987 he caused financial loss to the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. A departmental inquiry proceeded in which the petitioner was offered opportunity to defend himself. A copy of the inquiry report was provided to him and vide letter dated 25th October 1997 second show-cause notice was issued to him. The General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Circle, Hazaribagh accepted the findings of the inquiring officer that the charges were proved. 3. Finding no substance in the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the second show-cause dated 25th October 1997, the disciplinary authority by an order dated 14th February 2003 inflicted punishment of (i) recovery of Rs. 3,58,315/- and (ii) stoppage of three annual increments which shall have future effect. The appellate authority took note of office order dated 26th December 1986 a copy of which has been filed by the respondent-Corporation in supplementary affidavit dated 11th January 2010 vide Annexure-A and reduced the amount of recovery from the petitioner to Rs. 1,56,904.65. The penalty of stoppage of three annual increments was also reduced to forfeiture of one year's annual increment with future effect. 4. The petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31st January 2010. 5. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate order dated 27th May 2008 is unsustainable for two reason viz. (i) the appellate authority did not take note of the instances specifically referred to by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal that several other employees were exonerated on the ground that 10% driage is permissible and (ii) imposition of two penalties in a departmental proceeding is not permissible unless the rules specifically provide so. 6. It is admitted at Bar that the Conduct and Discipline Rules applicable to the government employees are applicable to the employees of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. 7. Rule 2 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 reads as under: “2. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member of a Subordinate Service: (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. 7. Rule 2 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 reads as under: “2. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member of a Subordinate Service: (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to government by the negligence or breach of order. (iv-a) Compulsory retirement. (v) Fine. (vi) Suspension. (vii) Removal from the Civil Service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment. (viii) Dismissal from the Civil Services of the Crown which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment: Provided that the penalty of fine shall be imposed only on menials and inferior servant. Explanation 1 - The discharge: (a) of person appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation, on grounds arising or at the specific conditions laid down by the appointing authority, e.g. want of vacancy, failure to acquire prescribed special qualification or to pass prescribed test. (b) of a person appointed, otherwise, than under contract, to hold a temporary appointment, on the expiration of the period of the appointment. (c) of a person engaged under contract in accordance with the terms of his contract does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule. Explanation 2 - The discharge of a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of probation for some specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service amounts to removal or dismissal within the meaning of the rule. Explanation 3 - Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement does not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule.” 8. The opening paragraph of Rule 2 does not indicate that in a departmental proceeding against a delinquent employee the disciplinary authority can impose more than one penalty provided thereunder upon him. Moreover, if at all such powers are vested in the departmental authority the principles of natural justice require that a reason must be recorded by the departmental authority. The opening paragraph of Rule 2 does not indicate that in a departmental proceeding against a delinquent employee the disciplinary authority can impose more than one penalty provided thereunder upon him. Moreover, if at all such powers are vested in the departmental authority the principles of natural justice require that a reason must be recorded by the departmental authority. Leaving this issue aside, this Court finds that the specific plea taken by the delinquent employee in his memorandum of appeal, that previously 10% driage was held permissible and other delinquent employees were exonerated, has not been taken note of by the appellate authority. 9. Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however, refers to the office order dated 26th December 1986 to submit that the period of misconduct against the petitioner was covered under the said office order and the appellate authority has duly taken note of the same and reduced the recovery amount. 10. On the face of the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation, this Court takes a view that it cannot be held that the petitioner was offered a fair treatment by the departmental authorities. The charge-memo served upon the petitioner did not refer to the office order dated 26th December 1986. The inquiring officer did not deal with the matter in the right perspective and he proceeded on a premise that only 5% driage was admissible for whole of the period. The disciplinary authority blindly accepted recommendations of the inquiring officer and the appellate authority seems to be unaware of the duty cast upon him in law. 11. Though normally the writ Court would not go into the questions of fact, but for the aforesaid reasons this Court is of the opinion that the appellate order dated 27th May 2008 needs a re-look by the appellate authority. The specific instances of previous cases which according to the petitioner are on similar footing need to be considered by the appellate authority. 12. Accordingly, appellate order dated 27th May 2008 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter within a period of next six months. 13. The writ petition stands allowed, to the aforesaid extent.