JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State. 2. Ordinarily in matters of minor punishment the High Court is loathe to interfere and the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, however, the contention of Shri Sharak Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that there is apparent error on the face of the record as while passing the impugned order the Special Secretary to the Government who has passed the order has merely quoted the Charge, the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect thereto and response of the petitioner to the show-cause notice and the inquiry report. This has been done from internal Page 1 to internal page 6, up to this stage there is absolutely no discussion of the findings by the Inquiry Officer, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet, the evidence which may have been collected in the inquiry, independently and objectively by the Disciplinary Authority to arrive at any finding. It is only in Para 3 that the Special Secretary has expressed his opinion. It is only in Para 3 that the Special Secretary has expressed his opinion. Para 3 reads as under : ^^3- Jh jke iwtu JhokLro] RkRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] dklxat lECk) uxj iapk;r] vekaiqj&dklxat lEizfr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] Vk.Mk vEcsMdjuxj ds fo#) vkjksi la[;k&1 vkaf'kd #i ls rFkk vkjksi la[;k&2 iw.kZ#i ls fl) ik;k x;kA Jh;qr JhokLro }kjk vius inh; nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa ykijokgh cjrus ,oa fufonk izdk'ku esa vfu;ferrk;sa cjrus ds fy, 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr mUgsa ifjfuUnk iznku djrs gq, 02 osru o`f) vLFkk;h #i ls 03 o"kksZ ds fy, jksds tkus dh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir fd;s tkus dk vufUre fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 'kklu ds i= la[;k& 869@ukS&4&21&16bZvks@2019] fnukad 20-09-2021 }kjk izpfyr foHkkxh; tkWp esa izkIr tkWp vk[;k rFkk tkWp vk[;k ds fo#) muds vH;kosnu ds ijh{k.kksijkUr vufUre n.M ds fofu'p; ij ek0 yksd lsok vk;ksx] m0iz0 iz;kxjkt dh lgefr miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA mi lfpo] ek0 yksd lsok vk;ksx m0iz0 iz;kxjkt ds i= la[;k&567@21@12&,0Mh0lh0@,l&10@2021&22] fnukad 17-11-2021 }kjk mDr ij nh x;h lgefr ds n`f"Vxr Jh jke iwtu JhokLro] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] dklxat lEc) uxj iapk;r vekaiqj&dklxat lEizfr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn Vk.Mk vEcsMdjuxj dks fuEufyf[kr 'kkfLr iznku djrs gq, muds fo#) izpfyr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ,rn~}kjk lekIr dh tkrh gS%& ^^Jh jke iwtu JhokLro] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] dklxat vfrfjDr izHkkj uxj iapk;r] vekaiqj dklxat lEizfr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] Vk.Mk vEcsMdjuxj ds fo#) vkaf'kd #i ls fl) vkjksi la[;k&1 rFkk iw.kZr;k fl) vkjksi la[;k&2 gsrq mUgsa ifjfufUnr djrs gq, 02 osru o`f) vLFkk;h #i ls 03 o"kksZa ds fy, jksdh tkrh gSA^^ bl vkns'k dh ,d izfr Jh jke iwtu JhokLro dh o"kZ 2021&22 dh okf"kZd xksiuh; izfof"V ds lkFk j[kh tk;sxhA lat; dqekj flag ;kno fo'ks"k lfpoA^^ 3. The submission is that proceedings were initiated for imposing a major punishment by issuance of charge-sheet. The petitioner had submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings. The Disciplinary Authority obviously did not differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, he served a show-cause notice upon the petitioner enclosing therewith the inquiry report asking him to respond whereupon the petitioner has submitted his response. The petitioner had submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings. The Disciplinary Authority obviously did not differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, he served a show-cause notice upon the petitioner enclosing therewith the inquiry report asking him to respond whereupon the petitioner has submitted his response. Now, at this stage the Disciplinary Authority was required to independently and objectively consider the entire material on record including the charges, facts of the case, reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge, evidence adduced during inquiry and then to record his independent and objective opinion as to whether the charge against the petitioner is proved and why the reply of the petitioner against the charge and his response to inquiry report is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority. A finding of guilt in respect of each charge should have been recorded with such discussion. It cannot be a mechanical exercise because the Inquiry Officer has found the charge to be proved, especially as, even thereafter, the petitioner has responded to the show-cause notice as against the inquiry report. 4. On a bare perusal of Para 3 of the impugned order the Court finds that there is no due and proper application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority to the relevant aspects of the matter and no discussion of the charges and evidence followed by his own opinion in respect of each of the charge as to how it is proved against the petitioner and why the reply of the petitioner in this regard against the charge-sheet as also against the inquiry report is not acceptable. Para 3 merely says that charge No. 1 and 2 have been found to be proved partially and totally respectively and the State Government has decided to impose a punishment of censure entry and withholding of two annual increments. Thereafter, it says that after examining the representation of the petitioner against the show-cause notice a tentative punishment was proposed to the Public Service Commission seeking its approval which was granted on 17.11.2021 and thereafter in Para 3 straightway the punishment of censure and withholding of two annual increments for years have been passed. The order is not at all in keeping with the requirements of principle of natural justice. There is no due and proper application of mind as referred hereinabove. The order is not at all in keeping with the requirements of principle of natural justice. There is no due and proper application of mind as referred hereinabove. There are no reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority discussing the charges and evidence etc. 5. Even if as Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that the punishment imposed was a minor one the fact remains that the proceedings were initiated for imposing a major punishment, but, this apart, even while imposing a minor punishment the order of the Disciplinary Authority has to disclose some application of mind which is absent in this case. It is passing of such orders which compel the Courts to interfere in such matters. Merely quoting the charge, findings of the Inquiry Officer, extract of the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice does not mean due and proper application of mind nor is it in keeping with the principle of natural justice. 6. At this stage Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel relied upon Rule 9(4) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1999')which reads as under : ''9.(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant.'' 7. Even when tested on the anvil of the said Rule the impugned order cannot be sustained. Even when tested on the anvil of the said Rule the impugned order cannot be sustained. By the said rule also, after the charged Government servant submits his response to the show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority is mandated to consider all relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules, 1999 and communicate it to the charged Government servant. As already stated, there is no 'consideration' by the Disciplinary Authority of all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant. Mere reference or quoting of the reply does not amount to its consideration. The order for the reasons already mentioned cannot be stated to be reasoned order also. 8. The Court may in this regard refer to the decision in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2014(8) ADJ 16 (DB), wherein the law as to how an inquiry is to be conducted and what is the role of the Disciplinary Authority has been discussed, albeit that was a matter pertaining to major punishment but so far as application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the same is somewhat similar whether the punishment to be imposed is major or minor and any order without due and proper application of mind even if imposing minor punishing is against the principle of natural justice as also against the letter and spirit of the Rules, 1999. 9. Even in respect to minor punishment Rule 10 of the Rules, 1999 reads as under : ''10. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-(1) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) impose one or more of the minor penalties mentioned in Rule 3. (2) The Government servant shall be informed of the substance of the imputations against him and called upon to submit his explanation within a reasonable time. The disciplinary authority shall after considering the said explanation, if any, and the relevant records, pass such orders as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be given. The order shall be communicated to the concerned Government servant.'' 10. The disciplinary authority shall after considering the said explanation, if any, and the relevant records, pass such orders as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be given. The order shall be communicated to the concerned Government servant.'' 10. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 very categorically provides that where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) impose one or more of the minor penalties mentioned in Rule 3. 11. The satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority has to be based on good and sufficient reasons which obviously implies proper application of mind, the entire material on record including the inquiry report where there is an inquiry report or otherwise the show-cause notice. Merely because at the stage of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 the Disciplinary Authority has not differred with the inquiry report, does not mean that, ultimately, after considering the response of the charge-sheeted Government servant to the inquiry report, he does not have to apply his mind and has necessarily to accept the inquiry report and the findings contained therein. This is not the scheme of the Rules, 1999 nor its intent. The requirement of Rules as aforesaid and principal of natural justice are not meant to be an empty formality. 12. Further more, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1999 also says that after considering the said explanation of the Government servant, if any, and the relevant records, pass such orders as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be given. None of these parameters and requirements are satisfied in the impugned order. The Court does not go into the question as to how the Special Secretary has passed the impugned order on behalf of the State Government as ordinarily it is the Principal Secretary or the Additional Chief Secretary who passes such an order which may be communicated by the Special Secretary, but, it does not take this into account for quashing the impugned order and it does so for other reasons already mentioned hereinabove. 13. The State Government, however, shall now proceed to pass a fresh order in the light of what has been stated hereinabove considering the response of the petitioner to the inquiry report etc. and other material on record. 14. 13. The State Government, however, shall now proceed to pass a fresh order in the light of what has been stated hereinabove considering the response of the petitioner to the inquiry report etc. and other material on record. 14. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.