JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Respondent No. 1-State appears to be a formal party as the order in appeal was passed only by respondent no. 2. 3. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 though served. 4. Challenge is made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 5. The appellant was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry by issuance of a charge-sheet on 29.06.2015 on the allegation that the appellant acted with negligence in the matter of conducting investigation on the complaint of complainant-Sunda Ram Yadav. 6. Under two charges and statement of allegations against the appellant, it was stated that initially a report was lodged by Sunda Ram Yadav alleging commission of offence of cheating. No offence was registered and enquiry was carried out, but the Investigating Authority found it to be a case of civil nature. Later on when the complainant approached the higher authority with new material, the matter was reopened and it is the case against the appellant that after re-enquiry conducted by the appellant, offence was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On the allegation that the appellant acted with negligence and did not carry out proper investigation and it was only when the higher authority directed reinvestigation, the offences were registered, the appellant was proceeded again. 7. The main aspect of reply filed by the appellant in the departmental enquiry was that initially when the investigation was carried out, the materials which were subsequently disclosed, were not placed before the authority. Admittedly, present was a case of money transaction between the parties and the allegation of the complainant was that the accused had acted with the intention of cheating right from the beginning. When the new material was disclosed, the appellant found it to be a fit case for registration of offences and the offences were accordingly registered. 8. A short argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have not applied their mind to the specific defence raised by the appellant that it was only on the basis of new material disclosed by the complainant that a prima-facia case for registration of offences was made out. 8. A short argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have not applied their mind to the specific defence raised by the appellant that it was only on the basis of new material disclosed by the complainant that a prima-facia case for registration of offences was made out. He would submit that non consideration of appellant's reply and specific defence renders the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority arbitrary and perverse. 9. We have gone through the charge-sheet, reply filed by the appellant, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and that passed by the Appellate Authority. 10. It is not in dispute that a complaint was made and allegation of cheating was made concerning certain monitory transactions. It is also not in dispute that initially the enquiry was carried out by an officer subordinate to the appellant and when the report was submitted before him, the same was forwarded to the next higher authority, who accepted the report and the case was directed to be closed. 11. The material on record also disclosed that subsequently the complainant submitted another complaint with certain affidavits and new material before the higher authority and the matter was reopened. It is not in dispute that finally the investigation was carried out by the appellant and offence was registered. 12. The specific defence raised by the appellant that it was disclosure of new material by the complainant before the higher authority which was again enquired into and offences were registered, has not been taken into consideration. 13. While it is settled legal position that this court would not assume the role of Appellate Authority to sit upon the correctness of the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the evidence which is admissible under the law, at the same time, non consideration of specific defence vitiate the decision making process and renders it liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above consideration, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the order passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. 14. In view of the above consideration, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the order passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. The case is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind to the specific defence taken by the appellant particularly that in the second round of enquiry, the material which was made basis to ventilate grievance, was not placed before the Investigating Authority in the initial report shall be duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.