JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Office Order No. 26 dated 14.07.2012, whereby a major punishment has been imposed against this petitioner even when the enquiry officer in preliminary enquiry has exonerated the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. 3. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner while he was working as a Forester during the period 2010-11 under the Social Forestry Range, Domchanch (Social Forestry Division, Koderma) an anomaly in official work was detected by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Koderma and a report was made to the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh by the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma. On getting the report, the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh had constituted an enquiry committee comprising of two Assistant Conservator of Forest vide order dated 11.04.2011. Subsequently, the site inspection by the two Assistant Conservator of Forest was made on 18.04.2011 and 19.04.2011, and after getting the inspection report; the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh instituted the disciplinary proceeding and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he filed a detailed reply and after completion of the entire departmental proceeding; the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner including recovery of amount amongst others. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority; who modified the order of punishment whereby, the recovery part has been deleted. 4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on following grounds: (i) No second show cause notice was given to the petitioner and it has been categorically accepted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit which is against the settled principle of law. (ii) No proper enquiry has been conducted in this case and no enquiry report has been given to the petitioner. (iii) Before passing the order in appeal, the Appellate Authority was well informed by his subordinate that the entire procedure is a nullity which is apparent from Annexure-5. (iv) Neither the impugned order of punishment nor the appellate order has given any reason, whatsoever, in either giving punishment to the petitioner and/or reducing the punishment, respectively. (iii) Before passing the order in appeal, the Appellate Authority was well informed by his subordinate that the entire procedure is a nullity which is apparent from Annexure-5. (iv) Neither the impugned order of punishment nor the appellate order has given any reason, whatsoever, in either giving punishment to the petitioner and/or reducing the punishment, respectively. While referring to Annexure-5, which was sent by the Presenting Officer to the appellate authority, learned counsel contended that the presenting officer has observed that there is extreme hurry and irregularity in framing of the charges against this petitioner. 5. Mr. Gautam further submits that in the said letter dated 28.03.2014, it has been observed by the Presenting Officer that the Inquiry Officer has recommended for punishment which is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as, the Inquiry Officer is only required to give finding on charge, whether it is proved or not proved but not to recommend for any punishment. He further referred to order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 713 dated 04.07.2012 and submits that the same is completely non-speaking and un-reasoned order. He submits that the impugned order is in two parts; the first part is the chronological facts and its description and in the second part; only in two lines the punishment has been imposed. 6. Mr. Gautam further submits that inspite of the order of the appellate authority though the entire recovery portion was withheld, but still some amount approx Rs.19,000/- has not been returned to this petitioner. 7. Relying upon the aforesaid contention and also the fact that even the enquiry report was not submitted to this petitioner, learned counsel prays that the impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure-4 deserves to be quashed and set aside and part of appellate order also deserves to be quashed, accordingly. 8. Mr. A.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent- State draws attention of this court towards the appellate order and submits that the appellate authority has considered the appeal of the petitioner and accordingly, reduced the punishment after giving clear finding. He further submits that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this court is having no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and to appreciate the evidence rather the only jurisdiction is to see the procedural irregularity or perversity. He further submits that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this court is having no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and to appreciate the evidence rather the only jurisdiction is to see the procedural irregularity or perversity. In the instant case, there is no procedural irregularity and a lenient view has already been taken by the appellate authority, as such the same should be sustained; and the instant writ application be dismissed because enough relief has been given to the petitioner. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that no second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner along with enquiry report and the same has been categorically accepted by the respondents in their counter5 affidavit which is certainly against the principles of law. It further transpires from perusing the record that before passing the order in appeal, the appellate authority was well informed by his subordinate that the entire procedure has been done in haste. Further, from perusal of the impugned order it appears that no reason has been assigned by the disciplinary authority though the appellate authority has considered the appeal well by giving reasons, but so far as disciplinary authority is concerned; reasons has not been assigned. Relevant portion of the order dated 04.07.2012 is quoted herein below: Þblh ekeysa esa Jh x;k izlkn ;kno] ouj{kh ds fo:} ou izeaMy inkf/kdkjh] lekftd okfudh izeaMy] dksMjek ds dk;kZy; vkns’k la[;k 18 fnukad 31-03-2011 }kjk foHkkfx; dk;Zokgh lapkfyr gS rFkk Jh lhrkjke pkS/kjh rRdkyhu ou {ks= inkf/kdkjh ds fo:} {ksf=; eq[; ou laj{kd] gtkjhckx ds i=kad 577 fnukad 18-04-2011 }kjk iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd] >kj[kaM jkaph dks foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk izLrko Hkstk x;k gSk mi;qZDr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij Jh Jo.k dqekj] ouiky ds fo:} bl dk;kZy; ds vkns’kkad 13 fnukad 18-04-2011 }kjk dh x;h foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk vafre fuLrkj.k fuEeukafdr vkns’k ds lkFk fd;k tkrk 10. It is true that the appellate authority has considered the claim of the petitioner and certainly he has modified the impugned order, but that is not sufficient in the eyes of law. Giving reasons by any quasi-judicial authority is condition precedent. In the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others as reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, this Court at para 47 has laid down certain principles/guidelines regarding recording of reasons in passing the orders. Giving reasons by any quasi-judicial authority is condition precedent. In the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others as reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, this Court at para 47 has laid down certain principles/guidelines regarding recording of reasons in passing the orders. Further, in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 41 has held that absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order. Para 41 of the order passed rendered in case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited (Supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- “41. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order.” 11. In view of the aforesaid two decisions, it is clear that any order has been passed by assigning reasons. In the case in hand though the appellate authority has given reasons, but the disciplinary authority has only reproduced the facts and imposed the punishment which has been quoted hereinabove. 12. In view of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 713 dated 04.07.2012 (Annexure -4) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order strictly in accordance with law and adherence to the principles of natural justice. It goes without saying that since the matter is of 2014; fresh order must be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. As a result, the instant writ application is allowed in part.