ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 27th August, 2019 setting aside the punishment of 'reduction of basic pay to a minimum of Senior Assistant Grade' by the disciplinary authority dated 5th December, 2007 and also further orders passed by the appellate authority. 3. While posted in the capacity of Assistant, Branch Office-(1) Bareilly, during the years 1997-98, for the alleged misconduct committed in the discharge of his duties under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, a Memorandum along with Article of Charge was served upon the respondent dated 13th May 2002. 4. After holding the domestic inquiry as per the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rules 1975, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25th September 2006. Based on the report of inquiry, the disciplinary authority under its Order dated 5th December, 2007 held the respondent guilty and punished him with the penalty of 'reduction of basic pay to the minimum of Senior Assistant Grade'. 5. The appeals which were preferred by the respondent employee before the appellate authority came to be dismissed by Orders dated 24th April, 2008 and 30th December, 2008 that became the subject matter of challenge by filing of a writ petition at the instance of the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. 5. The appeals which were preferred by the respondent employee before the appellate authority came to be dismissed by Orders dated 24th April, 2008 and 30th December, 2008 that became the subject matter of challenge by filing of a writ petition at the instance of the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after going through the report of inquiry followed with the order of disciplinary authority in particular, arrived to a conclusion that the findings which the inquiry officer has recorded in the report of inquiry are not supported by any evidence on record and no reasons have been assigned by the inquiry officer in arriving to a conclusion in recording the finding of guilt which was also not considered by the disciplinary authority while inflicting penalty upon the respondent under order dated 5th December, 2007 and follow up error being committed by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent by orders dated 24th April, 2008 and 30th December, 2008 and proceeding on the premise that the report of inquiry was laconic and was not according to the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1975 further held the order passed by the disciplinary authority being a non-speaking order and allowed the writ petition filed at the instance of the respondent by a judgment dated 27th August, 2019 and set aside the order of punishment dated 5th December, 2007 followed with the orders of the appellate authority dated 24th April, 2008 and 30th December 2008. 7. It has been informed that the respondent employee has superannuated in the year 2013. Under the scheme of Rules 1975, procedure for imposing major penalties has been provided under Rule 25 and the inquiry officer is under an obligation that after the procedure been followed at the stage of conclusion of inquiry, he has to prepare a report in terms of Rule 25(19)(i) and that has to be placed along with the record of inquiry for action to be taken by the competent authority as provided under Rule 26 of the scheme of Rules 1975. Rules 25(19)(i) and 26 of the Rules, 1975 are reproduced hereinbelow: 25. Rules 25(19)(i) and 26 of the Rules, 1975 are reproduced hereinbelow: 25. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties (1) to (18) xxx xxx xxx (19)(i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, report shall be prepared and it shall contain :- (a) a list of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (b) a gist of the defence of the employee in respect of each article of charge; (c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; (d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. Explanation :- If in the opinion of the inquiry authority the proceedings of the enquiry establish any article of charge different from the original articles of charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge. Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the employee has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. (ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the competent authority, shall forward to the competent authority the records of inquiry which shall include :- (a) the report of the inquiry prepared by it under sub-clause (i) above; (b) The written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the employee referred to in sub-rule (13); (c) The oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; (d) Written briefs referred to in sub-rule (16), if any, and (e) The orders, if any, made by the competent authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. 26. Action on the inquiry report :- (1) The competent authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the case to the inquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 25 as far as may be. (2) The competent authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (2) The competent authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the competent authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 23 should be imposed on the employee it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 27 make an order imposing such penalty. (4) If the competent authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the employee concerned." 8. After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court impugned dated 27th August, 2019 but we would like to clarify that the defect which was taken note of by the High Court under the impugned judgment refers to the manner in which the finding of guilt has been recorded by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority while inflicting penalty under order dated 5th December, 2007 which is indeed a non-speaking order and not sustainable in law. 9. We are of the view that the report of inquiry followed with the order of punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in law but, at the same time, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with the domestic inquiry pursuant to a Memorandum and Article of Charge served upon him dated 13th May, 2002 from the stage where the defect has been pointed out by the High Court under the impugned judgment. 10. Accordingly, while upholding the order passed by the High Court impugned dated 27th August 2019, we further clarify that the appellants are at liberty to proceed with the domestic inquiry pursuant to Memorandum and Article of Charge dated 13th May, 2002 served upon the respondent from the stage the defect has been pointed out under the impugned judgment in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1975 and conclude the domestic inquiry as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 11. 11. We further make it clear that any order is passed by the disciplinary authority at a later stage, if cause any prejudice to the respondent, he will be at liberty to assail the same in the appropriate proceedings known to law. 12. The appeal in the above terms stands disposed of. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.