JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7522 of 2012, wherein the contention of the petitioner was that no reason has been assigned for passing the order of penalty against this petitioner and even the appellate order suffers from non-application of mind. 3. This Court after discussing several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the writ application and quashed the order of punishment dated 03.01.2012 and the appellate order dated 30.08.2012 and the disciplinary authority was directed to pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks. 4. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ 2 petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on 01.06.1984 on the post of Stenographer. On 09.10.2007, an F.I.R. being Patna (Vigilance) Case No. 112 of 2007 was registered as the petitioner was caught red-handed while taking bribe of Rs.2,000/-. A departmental proceeding was also initiated in which charges were framed against this petitioner vide memo no.11176 dated 17.10.2008, on the allegation that he was caught red-handed while taking bribe of Rs.2,000/- on 09.10.2007. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted holding the charges leveled against the petitioner found proved. The petitioner filed his reply to the second show-cause notice on 13.07.2011 and the order of penalty dated 03.01.2012 was passed by the Respondent No.3- the disciplinary authority. Against the order of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by order dated 30.08.2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7522 of 2012. 5. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 7522 of 2012 the petitioner represented before the disciplinary authority and a final order has been passed as contained in Memo No. 8916 dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure-16). 6. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority has committed the same error for which the case was remanded, inasmuch 3 as, in the impugned order also they have not given any reason, as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. 6. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority has committed the same error for which the case was remanded, inasmuch 3 as, in the impugned order also they have not given any reason, as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Tandon further contended that he has taken a specific plea before the disciplinary authority in his reply to the second show-cause notice that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered at all while passing the order of penalty. As a matter of fact, no witness was examined while passing the order of punishment. 8. Relying upon the above contentions Mr. Tandon submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and no fruitful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back again in view of the law laid down in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , inasmuch as, his case is entirely covered by the aforesaid case, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when no witness was examined the charge cannot be proved. 9. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the contention of the petitioner that no fruitful purpose would be served in remanding the case back to authorities for passing fresh order. He further contended that under Article 226, this Court cannot sit in 4 appeal for re-appreciating the evidence. However, he fairly submits that the impugned order dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure-16) has been passed without giving reasons in detail in true letter and spirit as per the direction of this Court passed in earlier writ application filed by the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the case was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order in view of the fact that no reason was assigned in the order of penalty and even the appellate order was cryptic in nature. From perusing the impugned order (Annexure-16), it appears that the department has committed the same error by not assigning any reason and not dealing with the specific grounds raised by the petitioner given in his reply to the second show-cause. From perusing the impugned order (Annexure-16), it appears that the department has committed the same error by not assigning any reason and not dealing with the specific grounds raised by the petitioner given in his reply to the second show-cause. Further, the impugned order has been passed, relying upon another judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 6441 of 2010 which was certainly the earlier order. This court is having no hesitation in holding that the disciplinary authority has committed the same error for which the case was remanded. 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order of penalty as contained in Memo No. 8916 dated 5 10.09.2013 (Annexure-16) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 7522 of 2012 and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). 12. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the instant writ application is allowed and stands disposed of.