JUDGMENT RAJIV ROY, J.:– The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 (Rajendra Ram Vs. The State of Bihar) by which the learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar, as his Lordship then was) allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders by which punishment order vide memo no. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 was passed against the respondent-petitioner as also government resolution vide memo no. 1469 dated 6.2.2008 by which the appeal preferred by him was rejected by the Appellate Authority. 2. The matrix of facts leading to the present appeal is/are as follows:— 3. Vide notification no. 1652 dated 31.12.1990, the respondent-petitioner was posted as Consolidation Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua where he joined on 26.3.1992. While serving at Kaimur, he was given additional charge as Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bhabhua Collectorate as also Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhabhua and In-charge of the District Legal Cell vide letter dated 2.4.1992, 8.7.1992 and 2.7.1992 by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. Besides, he also served as Circle Officer, Bhabua following the direction dated 20.9.1992 issued by the office of District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. 4. The respondent-petitioner was transferred as Circle Officer, Bagaha in the district of West Champaran, Bettiah vide notification no. 312 dated 30.6.1995 which he joined accordingly. 5. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar Patna (henceforth for short “the Department”) vide memo no. 3048 dated 22.04.2000 served the memo of charge with a direction to submit show cause which he replied denying the charge vide letter no. 1107 dated 22.04.2001. 6. Thereafter, vide memo no. 2825 dated 24.9.2002, the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer while the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua was directed to appoint any Senior Officer as Presenting Officer. The respondent-petitioner was directed to submit his written defence which he diligently submitted on 31.12.2002. 7. As stated above, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent petitioner under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rule, 1930 (henceforth for short as CCA Rules). 8. Altogether eight charges were framed against the respondent-petitioner which are as follows:— (i) that in the year 1993 while the petitioner was posted as Chakbandi Officer, Chand/Chainpur and incharge Anchaladhikari, Bhabua, Dy. Collector Record Room was unauthorizedly absent during that period without the prior permission of the Collector. 8. Altogether eight charges were framed against the respondent-petitioner which are as follows:— (i) that in the year 1993 while the petitioner was posted as Chakbandi Officer, Chand/Chainpur and incharge Anchaladhikari, Bhabua, Dy. Collector Record Room was unauthorizedly absent during that period without the prior permission of the Collector. The then Collector directed the then S.D.O. Bhabua to give warning to the petitioner that he will not leave the head quarter without prior permission of the Collector. (ii) that the petitioner was deputed as Magistrate in charge by the order of S.D.O., Bhabua to conduct peaceful Intermediate Examination, 1993 at Bhupesh Gupta College, Bhabua but he did not perform his duty nor gave satisfactory explanation asked by S.D.O. Bhabua, so the petitioner was found prima facie guilty for disobeying the order of Higher Official. (iii) that when the petitioner was in additional charge of Circle Officer, Bhabua the Public Account Committee of Bihar Vidhan Sabha blamed the petitioner that he had disposed of several mutation cases after handing over charges. Charge against him is proved in Mutation Case No. 1150/93-94 that he had mutated the name in post dated and sent record after 25 days of his handing over charges after 25 days of his handing over charges to his successor. (iv) that the petitioner had misused the power in the matter of Integrated Rural Development Program in not timely forwarding petition to the bank concerned and kept them pending. The petitioner sent the selected beneficer’s petition to the concerned bank with a comment that “after payment of rent of session 1993-94 the petition should be accepted”. These allegations were personally enquired by the then D.M. and after the allegations were found against him true, he commented that the petitioner has put a new method in collecting rent and if this will be done by all the circle officers then this scheme shall be closed. (v) that the petitioner has ignored the order of the then D.M. i.e. to give public dealing works to Yogendra Ram, Karamchari after revoking the suspension of the said Karamchari but the petitioner ignoring the order of the D.M., gave contract work to the said Karamchari for construction of room near Patel Chawk, Bhabua and gave Rs. 56587/- as an advance. Inspite of this the petitioner gave the said Karamchari the charges of mutation, supply and another important works. 56587/- as an advance. Inspite of this the petitioner gave the said Karamchari the charges of mutation, supply and another important works. When this matter was noticed by the Collector, then the collector cancelled the order of the petitioner vide letter no. 322/Establishment dated 22.03.1994. This allegation is proved against the petitioner. (vi) that without obtaining sanction from district Administration in July 1994 the petitioner made one Deeleep Singh, Muharrir of Chakbandi Office, Chainpur, incharge of Mutation, supply, settlement, encroachment and homestead work in Bhabua Anchal. When the new Anchaladhikari joined in Bhabua in August 1994 and after knowledge of irregularities done by the petitioner then he removed Deeleep Singh from Anchal works. Prima facie this allegation is proved against the petitioner. (vii) that the petitioner was given planning for construction of school building in village Pokhara under Bhabua Anchal. The M.L.A. Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey made allegation against the petitioner that he knowingly and intentionally was not allowing the work to be completed. He intentionally misleaded the M.L.A. that there is no way for going in the village. Explanation was asked by District Administration vide letter no. 1246 dated 10.04.1994. After explanation was received from the petitioner the then Collector ordered the petitioner to complete the said works till 15.06.1994, but he had not completed the works in time. Hence the allegation against the petitioner has been proved. (viii) that without prior permission of District Magistrate, the petitioner appointed one Anwar Alam, IVth grade employee as contractor for making 20 shops which was going to be constructed with the help of public. The said work was not to be allotted to a IVth grade employee which was against law. Even after objection by beneficiaries and Administration the petitioner had not changed Anwar Alam. Later on advance money was recovered from him.” 9. The respondent-petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges made against him. 10. This was followed by the letter vide Letter No. 4255 dated 27.05.2004 issued by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner directing the respondent-petitioner to appear on 14.06.2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). He accordingly appeared and sought report sent by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. 11. The respondent-petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges made against him. 10. This was followed by the letter vide Letter No. 4255 dated 27.05.2004 issued by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner directing the respondent-petitioner to appear on 14.06.2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). He accordingly appeared and sought report sent by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. 11. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner thereafter vide Memo No. 310 dated 15.06.2004 gave direction for supplying copy of the report sent by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua further holding that the same should have been given to the Delinquent Officer at an earlier occasion (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The respondent-petitioner later submitted his defence statement on 24.08.2004 (Annexure- 8 to the writ petition). 12. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner finally submitted enquiry report vide Letter No. 642 dated 11.11.2005 holding therein that the Charge Nos. 5 & 6 stands proved; the Charge Nos. 2 & 4 are partially proved and so far as Charge Nos. 1, 3 & 7 are concerned, they are not proved (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). 13. Thereafter, ‘Disciplinary Authority’ issued second show cause notice to the respondent-petitioner vide letter No. 5676 dated 15.06.2006. The respondent-petitioner submitted his show cause denying all the charges. This was followed by Letter No. 10867 dated 27.10.2006 in which the Disciplinary Authority incorporated its difference of opinion on the Charge No. 3 (which was not proved) and sought reply from the respondent– petitioner who again replied on 09.11.2006. 14. The Disciplinary Authority finally passed the order vide Memo No. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 imposing two punishments i.e. (i) censure (ii) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 15. 14. The Disciplinary Authority finally passed the order vide Memo No. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 imposing two punishments i.e. (i) censure (ii) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 15. The order read as follows :— ^^fcgkj ljdkj dkfeZd ,oa Á'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkxA ladYi iVuk&15] fnukad 02-04-2007 Jh jktsUæ jke] fcŒÁŒlsŒ dksfV Øekad&988@99] 458@04] rRdkyhu vapy vfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk ÁHkkjh mi&lekgÙkkZ vfHkys[kkdkj ds fo:} vukfèkd`r :i ls vodk'k ij jgus] mPpkfèkdkfj;ksa ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk djus] vapykfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk dk ÁHkkj nsus ds ckn Hkh nkf[ky [kkfjt okn dk fu"iknu djus] lesfdr xzkeh.k fodkl dk;ZØe ds varxZr p;fur vkosndksa ds vkosnuksa dks vuko';d :i ls yfEcr j[kus] ftyk inkfèkdkjh ds funs'k ds foijhr jktLo deZpkjh ls ifCyd fofyax lacaèkh dk;Z ysus] fcuk ftyk Á'kklu dh Lohd`fr ds pdcanh dk;kZy;] pSuiqj ds eqgfjj dks vius dk;kZy; esa vapy dk;kZy;] HkHkqvk ds nkf[ky [kkfjt vkiwfrZ] cankscLrh bR;kfn dk;ksZ dk ÁHkkjh cuk;s tkus] Hkou fuekZ.k lacaèkh ;kstukvksa esa vfu;ferrk cjrs tkus] fcuk ftyk inkfèkdkjh dh Lohd`fr ds tu≶ksx ls cuus okyh nqdkuksa ds vfHkdÙkkZ ds :i esa vapy dk;kZy; ds vuqlsod dks vfHkdÙkkZ cuk;s tkus ls lacafèkr ftyk inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk }kjk Áfrosfnr xEHkhj vkjksiksa ds fy, flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1930 ds fu;e&55 ds rgr Jh jke ds fo:} foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lapkfyr dh xbZ ftlesa lapkyu inkfèkdkjh foHkkxh; tkap vk;qDr] fcgkj] iVuk fu;qDr FksA 2- lapkyu inkfèkdkjh ds tkap Áfrosnu ,oa earO;] vkjksfir inkfèkdkjh ds Li"Vhdj.k@ vH;kosnu ,oa lqlaxr dkxtkrksa ds lE;d~ leh{kksijkar Jh jke ds fo:} prqFkZoxhZ; deZpkjh dks ;kstuk dk vfHkdÙkkZ cukus] ftyk inkfèkdkjh }kjk eukgh ds ckotwn pdcanh dk;kZy;] pSuiqj esa eqgfjj ls jktLo dk;Z djkus lacaèkh vkjksi] Áekf.kr ik;s x;s gSa rFkk vkns'k dh vogsyuk ,oa Li"Vhdj.k ugha nsus] ÁHkkjh vapykfèkdkjh ds :i esa ÁHkkj R;kxus ds ckn Hkh nkf[ky&[kkfjt okn dk fu"iknu djus] xzkeh.k fodkl dk;ZØe lacaèkh vkosnu i=kksa ij dkjZokbZ ds Øe esa v|ru yxku jlhn dk ekax djus ls lacafèkr vkjksi va'kr% Áekf.kr ik;s x;s gSaA vr,o% mi;qZDr Áekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, ljdkj ds vkns'kkuqlkj Jh jke dks fuEukafdr n.M esa lalwfpr fd;k tkrk gS%& ¼1½ fuUnu dh ltk ¼o"kZ 1994&95½ ¼2½ lap;kRed ÁHkko ls nks osru o`f} dh jksd vkns'k%& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlkèkkj.k vad esa Ádkf'kr fd;k tk; rFkk bldh Áfr Jh jktsUæ jke] fcŒÁŒlsŒ ,oa vU; lacafèkr dks nh tk;A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gLrk{kj@& ¼jktsUæ Álkn½ ljdkj ds voj lfpo Kkikad&2@lh&3&30163@97 dkŒ 3573@iVuk&15 fnukad 02-04-2007 Áfrfyfi%& vèkh{kd] jktdh; eqæ.kky; xqytkjckx Ásl] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vxys vlkèkkj.k vad esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& ljdkj ds voj lfpo èkeZUæ@& Kkikad& 3573 iVuk&15] fnukad 02-04-2007 Áfrfyfi%& egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj] iVuk@foÙk ¼oS;fDrd½ nkok fuèkkZj.k dks"kkax] foHkkx] iVuk@vk;qDr] iVuk Áe.My] iVuk@ftyk inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk@vk;qDr] njHkaxk Áe.My] njHkaxk@ftyk inkfèkdkjh] njHkaxk@dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh] njHkaxk@Jh jktsUæ jke] fcŒÁŒlsŒ fo'ks"k Hkw&vtZu inkfèkdkjh] dks'kh ;kstuk] njHkaxk@dkfeZd ,oa Á'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] Á'kk[kk& 12] 14 pkfj=h dks"kkax rFkk Á'kk[kk&2 dks ¼10 vfrfjDr Áfr;ksa lfgr½ lwpukFkZ Ásf"krA 2- ftykfèkdkjh] njHkaxk ls vuqjksèk gS fd Jh jke dks ladYi dh rkfeyk djkdj rkfeyk Áfrosnu foHkkx dks miyCèk djk nsaA 3- ÁHkkjh inkfèkdkjh] pkfj=h dks"kkax ls vuqjksèk gS fd ltk dh Áfof"V d`i;k lqfuf'pr fd;k tk, A gLrk{kj@& ljdkj ds voj lfpoA** 16. The respondent-petitioner thereafter preferred appeal under Civil Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (henceforth for short ‘the 2005 Rules’) which was entertained by the Appellate Authority and vide Memo No. 1469 dated 06.02.2008, the said appeal was dismissed which read as follows :— ^^fcgkj ljdkj dkfeZd ,oa Á'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkxA ladYi iVuk&15] fnukad 6 Qjojh] 2003 Jh jktsUæ jke] fcŒÁŒlsŒ dksfV Øekad&988@99] 458@04] rRdkyhu vapy vfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk] ÁHkkjh mi&lekgÙkkZ vfHkys[kkxkj ds fo:} vukfèkd`r #i ls vodk'k esa jgus] mPpkfèkdkfj;ksa ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk djus] vapykfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk dks ¼vLi"V½ nsus ds ckn Hkh nkf[ky [kkfjt oknksa dk fu"iknu djus] lesfdr xzkeh.k fodkl dk;ZØe ds vUrxZr p;fur vkosndksa ds vkosnuksa dk vuko';d :i ls yafcr j[kus] ftyk&inkfèkdkjh ds funs'k ds foijhr jktLo deZpkjh ls ifCyd fMyhax lacaèkh dk;Z ysus] fcuk ftyk Á'kklu dh Lohd`fr ds pdcanh dk;kZy; pSuiqj ds eqgfjj dks vius dk;kZy; esa vapy dk;kZy;] HkHkqvk ds nkf[ky [kkfjt] vkiwfÙkZ] cUnksoLrh] bR;kfn dk;ksZ dk ÁHkkjh cuk;s tkus] Hkou fuekZ.k lacaèkh ;kstukvksa esa vfuferrk cjrs tkus] fcuk ftyk inkfèkdkjh dh Lohd`fr ds tu lg;ksx ls cuus okyh nqdkuksa ds vfHkdÙkkZ ds :i esa vapy dk;kZy; ds vuqlsod dks vfHkdÙkkZ cuk;s tkus ls lacafèkr ftyk inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk }kjk Áfrosfnr xaHkhj vkjksiksa ds fy, flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1930 ds fu;e&55 ds rgr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lapkfyr dh xbZ Fkh] ftlds lapkyu inkfèkdkjh foHkkxh; tkap vk;qDr] fcgkj] iVuk fu;qDr fd;s x;s FksA lapkyu inkfèkdkjh ds tkap Áfrosnu ,oa earO; vkjksfir inkfèkdkjh ds Li"Vhdj.k@vH;kosnu ,oa lqlaxr dkxtkrksa ds lE;d leh{kksijkUr ljdkj }kjk Áekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&3575 fnukad 02-04-2007 ds }kjk fuEukafdr naM Jh jke dks fuEukafdr gsrq lalwfpr fd;k x;k%& ¼d½ fuUnu dh ltk o"kZ 1994&95 ¼[k½ lap;kRed ÁHkko ls nks osruko`f} dh jksd 2- mi;qZDr naM ds fo:} Jh jke us fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e 32¼4½ ds rgr viuk vihy vH;kosnu lefiZr fd;kA Jh jke }kjk lefiZr vihy vH;kosnu dh lE;d tkap dh xbZ ftlesa dksbZ fopkj.kh; fcUnq ;k u;k rF; ugha ik;k x;kA 3- pwafd Jh jke dks ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ds Lrj ls naM dh LohÑfr nh xbZ Fkh] blfy, eaf=eaMy lfpoky; ,oa leUo; foHkkx ds i=kkad&2326 fnukad 24-12-2001 dh dafMdk ¼[k½ lkFk gh ifBr] fcgkj ljdkj lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds èkkjk 32¼4½ ds vkyksd esa buds vihy vH;kosnu dks eaf=eaMy ds le{k fopkjkFkZ ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA eaf=ifj"kn }kjk Jh ikloku dks vihy vH;kosnu dks vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k gSA vr,o% eaf=ifj"kn ds fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa Jh jke }kjk lefiZr vihy vH;kosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k%& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlkèkkj.k vad esa Ádkf'kr fd;k tk; ,oa bldh Áfr Jh jktsUæ jke] dksfV Øekad 988@99] 458@04 ,oa vU; lacafèkr dks nh tk;A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gLrk{kj@& ¼jktsUæ Álkn½ ljdkj ds voj lfpo Kkikad&2@lh&3&30163@97 dkŒ 1469@iVuk] fnukad 6 Qjojh] 2008 Áfrfyfi%& vèkh{kd] jktdh; eqæ.kky; xqytkjckx Ásl] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vxys vlkèkkj.k vad esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA vuqjksèk gS fd ladYi dh 100 ¼,d lkS½ Áfr;kaa dkfeZd ,oa Á'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks miyCèk djkus dh Ñik dh tk;A gLrk{kj@& ljdkj ds voj lfpo ujs'k@& Kki la[;k&2@lh&3&30163@97 dkŒ 1469@iVuk] fnukad 6 Qjojh] 2008 Áfrfyfi&egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj] iVuk@foÙk ¼oS;fDrd½ nkok fuèkkZj.k dks"kkax] foHkkx] iVuk@vk;qDr] iVuk Áe.My] iVuk@vk;qDr] njHkaxk Áe.My] njHkaxk@ftyk inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk@ftyk inkfèkdkjh] njHkaxk@dks"kkxkj inkfèkdkjh] njHkaxk@Jh jktsUæ jke] fcŒÁŒlsŒ fo'ks"k Hkw&vtZu inkfèkdkjh] dks'kh ;kstuk] njHkaxk@dkfeZd ,oa Á'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] Á'kk[kk&12] 14 pkfj=h dks"kkax rFkk ÁŒ&2 dks ¼5 vfrfjDr Áfr;ksa lfgr½ lwpukFkZ Ásf"kr ,oa vko';d ¼vLi"V½----- Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& ljdkj ds voj lfpoA** 17. Aggrieved by the order of punishment as well as rejection of the appeal, respondent-petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 with the following prayers:— (i) to quash the resolution bearing Memo No. 1469 dated 06.02.2008 whereby and whereunder Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 02.04.2007 has been rejected in a most mechanical manner without applying independent judicial mind as well as without hearing the delinquent officer and is not sustainable in the eye of law and the said order is cryptic one. (ii) to quash the resolution bearing Memo No. 3573 dated 02.04.2007 issued under the signature of Sri Rajendra Prasad, Under Secretary to the Govt. Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna whereby and wherunder after conclusion of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of Rule 55 of Civil Services (classification, Control and Apeal) Rule, 1930, two punishments namely (I) censure for the year (1994-95) and (ii) stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority without considering the defence submitted by the petitioner in complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice as well as norms settled for departmental proceeding”. 18. The main contention of the respondent– petitioner before the Writ Court was that:— (i) the charges were stale being of the year 1993-95; (ii) no witness was produced to prove the charges nor any document was exhibited to establish the same as mandated under Section 55 of ‘the Rules’; (iii) enquiry report also shows that no witnesses were produced or document exhibited to prove the charges and/or to come to the conclusion arrived at which led to the major penalty imposed upon him; (iv) the appeal too was dismissed by a cryptic order without assigning reasons ; (v) thus the order of punishment is a bad in law and fit to be dismissed. 19. In support of the contention put forward in the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner cited the case of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar Vs. Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. and Others reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 10 , Chairman, Disciplinary Authority Rani Lakshmi Bai Cheteria Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Barshney and Others reported in (2009)4 SCC 240 and Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) PLJR 518 . 20. Jagdish Sharan Barshney and Others reported in (2009)4 SCC 240 and Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) PLJR 518 . 20. The State appeared in the matter and opposed the writ petition justifying the orders in question. 21. The learned Single Judge took up the matter and vide an order dated 21.06.2017 allowed the writ petition holding as under:— (i) no reason assigned for delay in initiation of departmental proceedings; (ii) no oral evidence adduced/no witness was examined; (iii) the Enquiry Officer has to assign reason in writing for refusing to call witnesses; (iv) as serious charge were made against the petitioner, oral evidence had to be adduced under Section 55 of the Rules; (v) the petitioner had requested vide its Letter No. 3855 dated 24.08.2004 for allowing him to adduce oral evidence but the Enquiry Officer failed to do so; (vi) the Disciplinary Authority differed on the Charge No. 3. He is competent to differ and has to assign reason for it; 22. The learned Single Judge took note of the related case reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 10 (supra) and incorporated paragraph No-19 of the said judgment which is quoted here under :— “19. Therefore, in the facts of the case, this Court is constrained to hold that by not producing any evidence in support of its case, the respondent authorities have failed to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. Where charges have not been proved the enquiry report loses all its importance and the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained.” 23. He further took note of paragraph 7 of the said judgment which read as follows :— “Out of these three points, on one point there is no factual dispute that in the enquiry no witnesses were examined by the department nor any documents on the basis of which enquiry report is prepared were either introduced or proved. The charges against the petitioner were allegedly proved only on the basis of the replies given by the petitioner to the charge sheet and on the basis of the documents on record.” 24. Accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 was allowed vide order dated 21.06.2017 after holding as follows :— “10. The charges against the petitioner were allegedly proved only on the basis of the replies given by the petitioner to the charge sheet and on the basis of the documents on record.” 24. Accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 was allowed vide order dated 21.06.2017 after holding as follows :— “10. In view of facts and circumstances as has been discussed hereinabove, both the orders i.e. order of punishment as well as order of Appellate Authority are required to be set aside primarily on the ground that such orders are completely non-speaking and assign no reason. Besides this, since while conducting enquiry, which was initiated under Rule 55 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1930 absence of any oral evidence as noticed in Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar (supra) was itself violative and against the principal of natural justice and as such, both the orders are hereby set aside. 11. Accordingly, the order contained in memo no. 3573 dated 02.04.2007 (Annexure ‘2’ to the writ petition) and resolution of the Government contained in Memo No. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 (Annexure’2’ to the writ petition) whereby punishment was passed against the petitioner and resolution of the Government contained in memo no. 1469 dated 6th February, 2008 (Annexure ‘1’ to the writ petition) are hereby set aside and the writ petition stands allowed with all consequential benefits.” 25. Now it was the turn of the appellant-State of Bihar to assail the said order dated 21.6. 2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 by preferring LPA No. 1459 of 2017, the present appeal. 26. The main points put forward by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants are as follows:— (i) serious charges were made against the respondent-petitioner; (ii) the Enquiry Officer adopted proper procedure in line with ‘the 1930 Rules’ which concluded with the imposition of penalties which was duly upheld by the Appellate Authority; (iii) the penalties imposed: (a) Censure for the 1994-95, (b) Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. are minor penalties and hence in absence of adducing of evidence and/or cross-examination of the witnesses, the same will not vitiate; (iv) as ‘Rules 2005’ came into existence, the appeal preferred by the respondent-petitioner under the said Rule was entertained; (v) since the penalties were imposed following the approval of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the appeal was referred to the cabinet which rejected it and accordingly, the order has passed; (vi) the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the said facts and allowing the writ petition; 27. To support the case of the State, learned Senior Counsel for the State cited three judgments which is under:— (i) State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 (iii) Maharashtra State Board of Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi reported in (1991) (2) SCC 716 (iii) The State of U.P. Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha reported in (2009) 8 SCC, 310 28. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner drawing our attention to the second penalty submitted that the same comes within the purview of major punishment and not minor punishment as has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner and he further stated that:— (i) since the Delinquent Officer has suffered with major penalty, it was necessary for the Enquiry Officer to adduce oral evidence, examine the witnesses and allow the Delinquent Officer to cross-examine them; (ii) no reason in writing was assigned for not summoning the witnesses during the entire proceeding; (iii) accordingly, entire departmental proceeding was vitiated and no order of punishment could have been passed as principal of natural justice was not followed; (iv) even the appeal preferred by the respondent-petitioner was dismissed in a cryptic manner which shows complete non application of mind; (v) learned Single Judge was fully justified in allowing the writ petition; (vi) the appeal as such is fit to be dismissed ; 29. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has also cited the following judgements. (i) Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar Vs. Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. and Others reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 10 . (ii) Chairman, Disciplinary Authority Rani Lakshmi Bai Cheteria Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Barshney and Others reported in (2009)4 SCC 240 . (iii) Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) PLJR 518 . 30. (ii) Chairman, Disciplinary Authority Rani Lakshmi Bai Cheteria Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Barshney and Others reported in (2009)4 SCC 240 . (iii) Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) PLJR 518 . 30. We have carefully examined the entire records as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge and heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 31. It is true that while taking up of the matter under judicial review, the scope is limited. It cannot interfere with the finding of facts based on evidence and substitute its own finding. But it is equally true that the Court also has to see that proper procedure were followed in the proceeding and also whether the Principal of Natural Justice was followed in the matter or not ? 32. It is relevant to indicate here that once the charges are framed and supplied to the Delinquent Officer and the concerned officer dispute the same in its show cause, an oral enquiry followed by examination/cross-examination of the witnesses are must irrespective of the fact whether the employee makes a request in this regard or not. Hence, notice need be issued to him indicating the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should be led in his presence. It is also important that the employer should adduce his evidence whereafter the employee may be asked to lead his evidence. 33. The reason behind this principle is that not only the Delinquent Officer know about the charges made against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he is able to submit his reply. In absence of any witness being examined and/or any any record being exhibited, the proceeding cannot be said to be a proper one. 34. It is important to note that the statement of all the witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the Delinquent Officer unless there are reasons to act otherwise. If it is examined in the absence of the Delinquent Officer and materials not supplied to him again the procedure is illegal. 35. 34. It is important to note that the statement of all the witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the Delinquent Officer unless there are reasons to act otherwise. If it is examined in the absence of the Delinquent Officer and materials not supplied to him again the procedure is illegal. 35. It is further important to note here that where no enquiry was held either by examining the witnesses and/or affording the petitioner to cross-examine them as also no paper was allowed to be seen by the Delinquent Officer and no oral evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that the same is/was in the teeth of the Principles of Natural Justice and any order passed therein will be deemed to be an illegal order. 36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled law, we have to see whether in the present case the Principal of Natural Justice was followed (by providing opportunity to him to adduce oral evidence and go through the statement of the witnesses with further opportunity to cross-examine them) or not. 37. As a test case, we took up of Charge No. 2 against the petitioner which it read as follows :— ^^¼2½ Jh jke dh Áfrfu;qfDr ÁHkkjh n.Mkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk ds :i esa Jh Hkwis'k xqIrk dkWyst HkHkqvk esa bUVjfefM,V ijh{kk] 93 ds rgr] vuqe.Mykfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk us vius i=kad 439@eksŒ& fnukad 24-3-1993 }kjk dhA ;g vkns'k mUgsa gLrxr Hkh gqvk ijUrq ;s dk;Z ij ugha x;s bl ij vuqe.Mykfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk us vius i=kad 506@eksŒ fnukad 28-03-1993 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh] ij vktrd bUgksaus okafNr Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr ugha fd;kA bl Ádkj bu ij mPpkfèkdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk ds n`"Vkar Hkh ÁFke n`"V;k vkjksi Áekf.kr gksrk gSA** 38. The respondent petitioner submitted his reply which further read as follows:— ^^¼2½ dafMdk 02 ¼nks½ esa vèkksgLrk{kjh ds fo:} yxk;k x;k vkjksi rF; ls ijs gS ,oa lkjs dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls ifjyf{kr gksxk fd ;g vkjksi vius vki esa gkL;Lin ,oa fojksèkkHkkl rFkk iwokZxzg ls xzflr gSA bl lacaèk esa iwoZ vèkksgLrk{kjh }kjk vius dk;kZy; i=kad 1107@eksŒ fnukad 22-04-2001 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftls Lohdkj djus dh d`ik dh tk;A iqu% bl dafMdk esa yxk, x, vkjksiksa ds lacaèk esa dguk gS fd vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh HkHkqvk ds i=kad 439@eksŒ fnukad 24-03-1999 }kjk eq>s Hkqis'k xqIrk egkfo|ky; HkHkqvk fLFkr ijh{kk dsUæ ij naMkfèkdkjh ds :i esa Áfrfu;qDr dh x;h FkhA og vkns'k muds gh vkns'k i=kad 536@eksŒ fnukad 03-04-1993 }kjk ifjofrZr dj fn;k x;k vkSj esjh Áfrfu;qfDr mM+unLrk naMkfèkdkjh ds :i esa lHkh ijh{kk dsUæksa ij dh x;h] ftlds vuqikyu esa eSaus vius dÙkZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu bZekunkjh ls fd;kA vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh HkHkqvk }kjk vèkksgLrk{kjh ds vuqifLFkr jgus ds lacaèk esa dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha iwNk x;k vkSj bl lacaèk esa ,d rFkkdfFkr Li"Vhdj.k ftldk i=kad 506@eksŒ fnukad 28-03-1993 gS fd Áfrfyfi ftyk inkfèkdkjh dSewj HkHkqvk dks lwpukFkZ Ásf"kr dj nh x;hA vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh HkHkqvk dk i=kkad 536@eksŒ fnukad 03-04-1993 ds voyksdu ls Lor% Li"V gksxk fd baVjfefM,V dh ijh{kk fnukad 27-03-1993 ls 'kq: gksus okyh Fkh] ysfdu cSad ds gM+rky rFkk jkeuoeh ds pyrs fnukad 03-04-1993 rd lhfer dj fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj iqu% ijh{kk fnukad 06-04-1993 ls 'kq: gqbZA bl Ádkj fnukad 27-03-1993 ls Áfrfu;qDr ds lacaèk esa vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh }kjk vèkksgLrk{kjh ls Li"Vhdj.k Hkh iwNk tkrk rks dgka rd U;k;ksfpr gS ;g fopkj.kh; fo"k; gS vkSj ;gh dkj.k gS fd vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh }kjk iwNk x;k Li"Vhdj.k eq>s ÁkIr ugha djk;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud&03 ,oa 04 n`"VO;½ vr% dafMdk 02 esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds lacaèk esa iwoZ esa fn, x, Li"Vhdj.k dks Lohdkj fd;k tk;A** 39. After the decision of ‘the Department’ to initiate departmental proceedings and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner directed the respondent-petitioner to appear before him on 14.06.2004 vide his office Letter No. 4255 dated 27.05.2004. 40. On the said date (14.06.2004), the respondent-petitioner appeared and sought the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner thereafter, vide memo no. 40. On the said date (14.06.2004), the respondent-petitioner appeared and sought the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner thereafter, vide memo no. 310 dated 15.06.2004 recorded the same and directed the concerned authority to provide the Delinquent Officer the report with an observation that the same should have been provided to him at an earlier occasion. 41. The respondent-petitioner submitted its reply on 24.08.2004 and once again it is necessary to incorporate the reply filed by him on the Charge No. 2. 310 dated 15.06.2004 recorded the same and directed the concerned authority to provide the Delinquent Officer the report with an observation that the same should have been provided to him at an earlier occasion. 41. The respondent-petitioner submitted its reply on 24.08.2004 and once again it is necessary to incorporate the reply filed by him on the Charge No. 2. ^^vkjksi la[;k 2 & bl vkjksi ds lacaèk esa vèkksgLrk{kjh dks ;g Li"V djuk gS fd vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk ds i=kad 439@xksŒ fnukad 24-03-1993 }kjk esjh Áfrfu;qfDr Hkqis'k xqIrk dkWyst] HkHkqvk esa ÁHkkjh n.Mkfèkdkjh ds :i esa bUVjehfM;V dh ijh{kk ds volj ij dh xbZ Fkh tks ijh{kk fnukad 27-03-1993 ls vkjEHk gksus okyh FkhA vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk ds Kkikad 501@xksŒ fnukad 27-03-1993 }kjk iqu% ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd fnukad 27-03-1993 ls vkjEHk gksus okyh bUVjehfM;V ijh{kk esa esjh Áfrfu;qfDr mM+unLrk n.Mkfèkdkjh ds :i esa dh tkrh gS vkSj eq>s fnukad 07-04-1993 ls 24-04-1993 rd Hkwis'k xqIrk dkWyst] HkHkqvk ds lkFk&lkFk lHkh ijh{kk dsUæksa ij Hkze.k djuk gksxkA bl vkns'k dks Hkh vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk ds vkns'k Kkikad 536@xksŒ fnukad 03-04-1993 }kjk la'kksfèkr fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 27-03-1993 ls gksus okyh ijh{kk ds LFkfxr gksus] ijh{kk iqu% fnukad 06-04-1993 ls 'kq: gksus dh lwpuk nsrs gq, ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd esjh Áfrfu;qfDr mM+unLrk n.Mkfèkdkjh ds :i esa ek=k fnukad 06-04-1993 ls 10-04-1993 rd ds fy, dh tkrh gSA Jheku~ dks ;g Li"V djuk leqfpr Árhr gksrk gS fd fnukad 27-03-1993 ls gksus okyh bUVjehfM;V dh ijh{kk ds LFkfxr gksus dh lwpuk vèkksgLrk{kjh lfgr ftyk ,oa vuqeaMy Á'kklu dks fnukad 26-03-1993 dks gh ÁkIr gks pqdh FkhA vr% vuqeaMykfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk ds vkns'k Kkikad 439 fnukad 24-03-1993 ds vuqikyu dk Á'u gh ugha jg x;k FkkA ijorhZ vkns'k la[;k 536 fnukad 03-04-1993 dk vuqikyu vèkksgLrk{kjh }kjk fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlds Øe esa vius drZO; fuoZgu esa dksbZ dksrkgh ugha cjrh x;h gSA tgka rd iwNs x;s Li"Vhdj.k dk mÙkj ugha nsus dk Á'u gS rks fouezrkiwoZd eq>s lwfpr djuk gS fd eq>s vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh dk i=kkad 506 fnukad 28-03-1993 vÁkIr jgk gS vU;Fkk esjs }kjk mÙkj vo'; fn;k tkrkA vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk }kjk fuxZr rhuksa lanfHkZr vkns'k dh Nk;k Áfr layXu gS ¼vuqyXud&5] 6 ,oa 7 n`"VO;½A lacaèk esa Hkh ftyk inkfèkdkjh }kjk fn;k x;k earO; Hkzked ,oa vkèkkjghu gSA esjs }kjk Jheku~ dks lefiZr lHkh Li"Vhdj.kksa esa ;g Li"Vr% dgk x;k gS fd vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk dk i=kad 506 fnukad 28-03-1993 eq>s vÁkIr jgk gSA tcfd ftyk inkfèkdkjh] HkHkqvk }kjk vius earO; esa dgk tk jgk gS fd mUgksaus esjs Li"Vhdj.k dks ns[kk gS vkSj mlesa mfYyf[kr rF;ksa ls bUgksaus vius earO; esa leh{kk Hkh dj yh gSA ;gh ugha vkjksi la[;k 1 ds rF;ksa dks Hkh tcju bl vkjksi ls lacafèkr vius earO; esa lekosf'kr dj rF;ksa dks Hkzked cukus dk Á;kl Hkh buds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V djuk Áklafxd Árhr gksrk gS fd viuh ewy in pdcanh inkfèkdkjh] pkan ds vykok eq>s yxHkx ,d ntZu inksa dk vfrfjDr ÁHkkj Hkh fn;k x;k Fkk ftuds fuoZgu esa eq>s fujarj ,d dk;kZy; ls nwljs dk;kZy; vkSj ,d LFkku ls nwljs LFkku rd nkSM+uk iM+rk FkkA ;fn eSa dk;ksZ ds Áfr ykijokg] eq[;ky; ls fcuk vuqefr ds vuqifLFkr jgus okyk LosPNkpkjh ,oa vuq'kklughu inkfèkdkjh gh Fkk rks eq>s brus lkjs inksa ds ÁHkkj D;ksa vkSj fdl ifjfLFkfr esa fn;s x;s Fks] Jheku~ ds fy, ;g lgt gh fopkj.kh; gSA** 42. Thereafter as per the averments made in the writ petition, although the proceeding was adjourned for several dates, neither any witness was produced nor he got an opportunity to cross-examine them. It was further contended in the writ petition that the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner had asked ‘the department’ to furnish list of witnesses if it is ready to prove the charge through witnesses which was never done. 43. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner finally vide Letter No. 642 dated 11.11.2005 submitted his finding/enquiry report to ‘the Department’ wherein so far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned, it held that the same was partially proved. 44. We have elaborated the entire facts relating to Charge No. 2 which we had taken as a test case and have come to definite conclusion that so far as the said charge is concerned, the petitioner had disputed the same and in the said backdrop, it was essential on their to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence and examine the material witnesses related to the said charge. 45. It was further essential to allow the respondent-petitioner to cross-examine the material witnesses so that it is finally held whether the charge is proved against him or partially proved or same has not been proved. This was the minimum requirement of any enquiry and failure to do so would mean that the Principal of Natural Justice was not followed in this case. 46. Thus, in our considered opinion, in the absence of following ‘the Rules’ of the Civil Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1930, the Enquiry Officer could not have come to the conclusion that the Charge no. 2 stands partially proved. 47. Further, the Enquiry Officer while submitting the enquiry report had found the Charge No. 3 to be not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on the other hand, differed with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer so far as the said Charge No. 3 is concerned. He had absolute power to differ with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer but it was essential on his part to record the reasons for differing with the said report and supported by material informations, which the Disciplinary Authority failed to do so. 48. He had absolute power to differ with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer but it was essential on his part to record the reasons for differing with the said report and supported by material informations, which the Disciplinary Authority failed to do so. 48. Accordingly vide Memo No. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 (Annexure-2) the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent-petitioner is guilty of charges and accordingly, gave following punishments i.e. (i) censure (ii) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 49. A bare perusal of the order would show that no reasons have been assigned for coming to the conclusion and punishing the Delinquent Officer. 50. The respondent-petitioner preferred appeal against the order under ‘Rule 32(4) of the Civil Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule, 2005. It is essential to note here that although the departmental proceedings was initiated under ‘1930 Rules’, further orders as also the appeal preferred by the respondent-petitioner was under ‘Rule 2005’ which was duly entertained by the respondent-authorities/State. 51. Vide Memo No. 1469 dated 06.02.2008, the Appellate Authority chose not to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent-petitioner by a cryptic order stating therein as under:— “Since the punishment order was issued after approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the appeal was presented before the Cabinet which rejected it and as such the appeal preferred by him is rejected”. 52. The aforesaid order clearly shows complete non-application of mind inasmuch as none of the points raised by the Delinquent Officer in the appeal was discussed and it has only been noted in the order that since the order of punishment had the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the matter was placed before the Cabinet and rejected. Such kind of order which has implications inasmuch as major punishment has imposed against the Delinquent Officer cannot be appreciated. 53. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of Maharashtra State Board of Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi reported in (1991) 2 SCC 716 , with special reference to paragraph 20 and 21. 54. We have gone through the said order passed by the Apex Court. Paragraph-20 speaks that Principal of Natural Justice required recording of reason. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned either by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. 55. K.S. Gandhi reported in (1991) 2 SCC 716 , with special reference to paragraph 20 and 21. 54. We have gone through the said order passed by the Apex Court. Paragraph-20 speaks that Principal of Natural Justice required recording of reason. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned either by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. 55. Again in paragraph-21, the Apex Court held that the authority also has to give assurance that it has applied its mind. As noted above, in absence of any reason assigned by the authorities, it cannot be said that there was application of mind on their part. 56. Learned counsel for the appellant next cited the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in 2021 (2) SCC 612 with special reference to paragraph no. 25 and this Court deems it appropriate to quote the same here in appeal. “When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusion are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.” 57. This Court has incorporated paragraph 25 which clearly records that the Court has to examine and determine whether amongst others the Rules of Natural Justice has been complied in or not. Admittedly, the same was not followed in the present case. 58. We would also like to incorporate paragraph no.-26 of the said judgment. “26. It is well settled that where the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry”. 59. 59. In this particular case, although the Disciplinary Authority differed with the Enquiry Officer on charge No. 3, he failed to record reasons for his disagreement, did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and/or remitted the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry. 60. Learned counsel for the appellant next cited the case of the State of UP Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case held that it was not open for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence. Here, this Court has not re-appreciated the evidence rather have come to conclusion that the respondent-petitioner has suffered as the Principal of Natural Justice was not followed by the respondent-authorities in not allowing him to either adduce evidence and/or cross-examine the witnesses. This Court has also found that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to provide reason in the order for coming to a conclusion and passing an order for major punishment. The subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority is also cryptic inasmuch as the point put forward by the respondentpetitioner in his appeal has not been dealt with and it has merely recorded that since the order of punishment had the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the matter was placed before the Cabinet and the same has been rejected. 61. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case, there was complete violation of natural justice by not allowing the respondent-petitioner to either adduce evidence and/or go through the evidence of the witnesses and/or cross-examine them. Further, the Disciplinary Authority although differed with the Enquiry Officer on the point of Charge No. 3, he neither recorded its reason and/or enquired into the matter, afforded any opportunity of hearing to the respondent-petitioner and/or remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for further hearing. 62. The Disciplinary Authority further failed to provide any reason for coming to the conclusion and passing an order of major punishment against the respondent-petitioner. 63. Coming to the Appellate Authority, the cryptic order speaks a lot. Only because the punishment order had the approval of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the Appellate Authority chose not to apply its mind and simply forwarded the matter to the Cabinet and upon its rejection conveyed the same to the respondent-petitioner. 63. Coming to the Appellate Authority, the cryptic order speaks a lot. Only because the punishment order had the approval of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the Appellate Authority chose not to apply its mind and simply forwarded the matter to the Cabinet and upon its rejection conveyed the same to the respondent-petitioner. In the process there was complete denial of principles of natural justice to the Delinquent Officer. It is reiterated that the proceedings against the respondent-petitioner was initiated under ‘the Rules 1930’ whereas the Disciplinary Authority issued the further orders including the punishment order under ‘Rules, 2005’. Appeal too was entertained under the said ‘Rules 2005’ and order passed accordingly. 64. We thus hold that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the order as contained in memo no. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 as also the resolution of the Government as contained in memo no. 1469 dated 06.02.2008 issued by the Appellate Authority. 65. There is no infirmity in the order dated 21.06.2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal preferred by the State fails and is thus hereby dismissed.