ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P/1) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order 30.06.2014 (Annexure P/2) by which the petitioner’s salary has been reduced to the lowest stage of the pay band in Basic 18,600/- + Grade Pay 6600/- for three years. The annual increment for three years was also withheld with cumulative effects. 2. Brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 20/9/2011 (Annexure P/3) alleging that while he was posted as Deputy Collector, Raigarh between October, 2004 to June, 2007 in that period between 15/10/2004 to 28/4/2006 he was In-charge of Nazul Office, Raigarh and committed gross negligence in discharging his duty of Nazul Officer in revenue case No. 31/A-4/04-05 and acted in contravention of the procedure prescribed in Section 4 (1) of the Revenue Book Circular (hereinafter referred as ‘RBC’) and thus committed misconduct. 3. The following charges were leveled against him: vkjksi vki fnukad 15-10-2004 ls twu 2007 rd fMIVh dysDVj] jk;xढ+ esa inLFk Fks rRle; fnukad 15-10- 2004 ls 28 -04-2006 rd utwy vf/kdkjh] jk;xढ+ ds ÁHkkj ij jgsA mDr vof/k esa vkius utwy Hkwfe dk dj fu/kkZj.k gsrq vkosnu i= vkosnd bUæiky flag HkkfV;k ls lh/ks ÁkIr dj vf/kdkj {ks= ls ckgj tkdj jktLo Ádj.k Øekad 31@v&4@04&05 esa jktLo iqLrd ifji= [k.M 4 Øekad&1 esa fn;s x;s Áko/kkuksa ds foijhr dk;Zokgh dh xbZA bl Ádkj vkidk mDr d`R; NŒxŒ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3¼1½ ¼,d½ ¼nks½ ,oa ¼rhu½ rFkk jktLo iqLrd ifji= [k.M&pkj&1 ds foijhr gSA ifj.kkeLo:i vkius Lo;a dks NRrhlxढ+ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ds fu;e&14 ds v/khu vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh dk Hkkxh cuk fy;k gSA 4. The petitioner before submitting reply to the charge-sheet has sought relevant documents vide his applications dated 03.10.2011 and 23.01.2012 for providing the documents as mentioned in the charge sheet as well as documents namely the Government instruction prohibiting the Nazul Officer to accept application for fixation of tax regarding Nazul Land, copy of memo dated 25.01.1969, and thereafter any order issued by the State Government on the basis of which a sale-deed can be declared to be null and void. If tax assessment proceedings conducted by the petitioner is held to be null and void in any court proceedings, copy of the same be also provided. It has also been contended that the documents are relevant to defend his case and in absence of non supply of documents his right to defend will be adversely prejudiced. It has also been mentioned that in absence of relevant documents, the delinquent officer cannot take defence property as such all the documents sought by the petitioner may be supplied to him. 5. The respondent without supplying these documents has initiated the departmental proceedings and accordingly Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Additional Collector, Raigarh was appointed as Presenting Officer. 6. The respondent, to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner has examined Mahesh Patel, the then Revenue Inspector as PW-1, Girish Kumar Verma the then Revenue Inspector, Raigarh as PW-2, Smt. Shakuntala Thawait Assistant Grade III as PW-3 but her statement could notbe completed as she expired on 06.03.2011, J.R. Nikunj the then Superitendent Land Record (Nazul) as PW-4. The petitioner to prove his innocence has moved an application on 19.11.2012 to examine R.S. Vishwakarma the then Collector, Raigarh DW-1, Thakur Ram Singh, Collector as DW-2, Manish Kumar Tyagi the then Collector Raigarh as DW-3, Shri Ashok Agrawal, the then Collector Raigarh as DW-4, R.P. Jain, Commissioner Bilaspur as DW-5, Smt. Nidhi Chibbar, Secretary G.A.D. as DW-6, S.L. Ratre, the then Additional Collector, Raigarh as DW-7, S.N. Ekka Additional Collector, Raigarh as DW-8, Abhay Kumar Mishra, Joint Collector, Raigarh as DW-9, A.K. Gritlahre, the then Deputy Collector as DW-10. The Enquiry Officer has not allowed the said application and only directed the petitioner to examine Abhay Kumar Mishra and A.K. Gritlahre as defence witness. The prosecution witness PW-1 Girish Kumar Verma has nowhere stated anything against the petitioner but in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has seen that applications were submitted before the Nazul Officer in head A-4. The cases were registered before the Nazul Officer only. He has specifically stated that he could not recollect that any matter is registered before the Collector then only it can be received by the Office of Nazul Officer for further proceedings. The witness has also exhibited the Nazul Tax Assessment receipt Ex. D-1. The cases were registered before the Nazul Officer only. He has specifically stated that he could not recollect that any matter is registered before the Collector then only it can be received by the Office of Nazul Officer for further proceedings. The witness has also exhibited the Nazul Tax Assessment receipt Ex. D-1. The prosecution witness J.R. Nikunj has not made any statement to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner examined two witnesses in his defence namely Abhay Kumar Mishra as DW-1 and A.K. Gritlahre as DW-2. Abhay Kumar Mishra in his evidence has stated that the sale-deed can be declared null and void or cancelled by the Civil Court only. When he was asked who can authorize any officer to discharge the duty of Nazul Officer, in the reply, he said the Collector. The witness has further admitted that he has received the application as Nazul Officer. He has also stated that Nazul Officer after completing the Tax Assessment Proceeding forwarded the file to the Collector. He has also stated that Nazul Office is having authority to receive the application also. 8. After completion of departmental enquiry, the Presenting Officer has submitted his written brief contending that the delinquent officer has not rebutted the charges leveled against him and evidence adduced by the respondent has proved the guilt of the petitioner. It has also been stated that Indrapal Singh Bhatiya has no right to move an application for assessment of tax. As such, no lease after fixation of taxes can be issued in favour of Indrapal Singh Bhatiya. The presenting Officer has also stated that the petitioner in collusion with Indrapal Singh Bhatiya, without any authority deliberately suppressing the facts, has forwarded the application to the Collector and obtained approval. Thus, the charges leveled against the petitioner is partially proved. 9. The petitioner submitted his written brief on 19.11.2012 mainly contending that the charges are false and fabricated and has stated that the map which has been prepared is not available in the record and even the demarcation report prepared from order of any authority is also not available on record thus there is contradiction and omission in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It has been further contended that the loss which has been assessed to the tune of Rs. It has been further contended that the loss which has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 1.61 Crores is without any foundation and the State has failed to prove the same and would pray for exoneration from the charges. It has also been stated that the documents have not been supplied to him despite repeated demand, as such his right to defence is adversely affected causing prejudice to him. 10. The Disciplinary Authority has supplied the copy of inquiry report dated 19.03.2013 and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has submitted that before issuance of charge-sheet the matter has already been examined by three Senior Officers and report has already been sent to the Government, but no decision has been taken. As such, the initiation of departmental enquiry is bad-in-law. It has been further contended that he has prayed for supply of relevant documents which have not been considered and inquiry has been conducted. It has also been contended in absence of Presenting Officer the Inquiry Officer has cross examined the witnesses and thus acted as Judge and prosecution which is against the Principles of Natural Justice. It has also been contended that witness Mahesh Patel has not stated anything before him but an affidavit was submitted and opportunity of cross-examination was not given to him. It has been further contended that he was not allowed to lead all evidences to prove his innocence which is violation of Principles of Natural Justice and would pray for exoneration. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has gone beyond the scope of the charges leveled against the petitioner and without any evidence submitted his report. He would further submit that the Disciplinary Authority without appreciating the evidence available on record simply expressed its concurrence with the report of Enquiry Officer and imposed the major penalty under Rule 10 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules) and reduced the pay band of the petitioner for three years with cumulative effect vide its order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P/2). 12. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before His Excellency, the Governor of Chhattisgarh, who is the appellate authority as per the provisions of Rule 23 (1) of the CCA Rules. His Excellency, the Governor sent the appeal for decision to the same authority, which passed the order of punishment and who in turn dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P/1) in complete violation of Rule 27 of the CCA Rules, which specifically states that in case of an appeal against an order of imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders (i) confirming. enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it of the case. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal utterly failed in adhering to the provisions of Rule 27 (2) of the CCA Rules and dismissed the appeal by a non-speaking order and even decided the appeal without application of mind and affirmed the order of major penalty, which suffers from perversity and has passed order in complete violation of Principles of Natural Justice and without appreciating the evidence available on record and travelling beyond the scope of the charge-sheet served to the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 13. Hence, this petition. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders passed by respondents are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the order has been passed on the basis of a vague enquiry report without following the Principles of Natural Justice and would pray for allowing the instant petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents imposing major penalty upon the petitioner. To substantiate his submission the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 539 , Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 , Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515 , Ayaaub Khan Noor Khan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , Bharat Electronics Ltd. vs. K. Kasi, 1986 SCC Online Kar. 30, Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 409 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajeev Jain, 2001 (1) MPHT 58, Rachapudi Subba Rao vs. Advocate General, (1981) 2 SCC 577 , S.P. Goel vs. Collector of Stamps, (1996) 1 SCC 573 , P.K. Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in Cr. M.P. No. 366 of 2015, dated 17.06.2020 and Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar vs. State of Bombay, (1964) 1 SCR 200 : AIR 1964 SC 436 . 14. The State has filed their return mainly contending that the petitioner while holding charge of Nazul Officer a complaint was made against the petitioner by one Ramavtar Sharma on 17.07.2006 alleging that petitioner has missed the records causing loss to the Government. In pursuance of the complaint preliminary inquiry was conducted and report dated 13.08.2008 was submitted wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has submitted illegal report dated 11.08.2005 and on the basis of the same the Collector has passed the order on 18.08.2005 causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 1.61 Crores in collusion with Indrapal Singh Bhatiya. 1.61 Crores in collusion with Indrapal Singh Bhatiya. It has been further contended that the petitioner has granted the lease of Government land to a private party by means of assessment of Nazul Tax by violating the provisions of Revenue Circular, Part IV Clause I particularly Clauses 17, 18 and 19 without verifying the ownership and possession. Thereafter, regular departmental inquiry was conducted on which the charges were found proved and accordingly the punishment order was passed and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. Learned counsel for the State would submit that after departmental inquiry order of punishment has been passed. The respondents have conducted inquiry in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice and rules made in this regard. The petitioner has participated in the inquiry, cross-examined the witnesses as such there is no procedural irregularity which warrants interference by this Court. He would further submit that it is well settled position of law that this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot appreciate the evidence, material on record as if it is an Appellate Authority of Enquiry Officer. It is further contended that the power of this Court to interfere in the punishment order is very limited unless it shocks the conscious of the Court and the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. This is not the case where interference is warranted and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case as well records of the departmental inquiry. 17. From the above discussion, the point to be determined by this Court is whether the Enquiry Officer has acted fairly in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice or not? If no then what should be its effect? 18. The record of the departmental enquiry would demonstrate that the petitioner has submitted application dated 03.10.2011 for supply of documents as detailed in foregoing paragraphs these documents are relevant as in the statement of charges the State has relied upon the Part IV Clause I of Revenue Book and Circular dated 25.01.1969 which provides that how at the time of allotment of Nazul Land surrounding circumstances should be considered. But these documents have not been provided to the petitioner despite persuasion. But these documents have not been provided to the petitioner despite persuasion. The record of the departmental enquiry would demonstrate that the petitioner has mentioned that earlier three officers have conducted inquiry and nothing was found against him and the report was sent to the Government but no further communication was made. This factual matrix has not been discussed by the Enquiry Report and the Enquiry Officer in its report has nowhere discussed the evidence adduced by the State how the charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved. The Enquiry Officer in prejudicial manner without considering the defence adduced by the petitioner has held that the charges are partially proved. It is well settled position of law that the inquiry officer should consider the evidence adduced by all the parties and thereafter independently assess the evidence brought on record, then only shall submit report whether charges have been proved or not. It is also well settled position of law that Enquiry Officer is a judge who should act fairly without any bias and prejudice. From bare perusal of the report dated 19.03.2013, it does not reflect that the Enquiry Officer has considered the entire evidence and acted fairly. Thus, the inquiry report is against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , wherein it has been held that: 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 21. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 21. Yet again in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 this Court held: (SCC p. 95, Para 25) “25.......Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 22. Yet again in Jasbir Singh vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, (2007) 1 SCC 566 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 401 this Court followed Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840, stating: [Jasbir Singh Case (2007) 1 SCC 566 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 401, SCC p. 570, Para 12] “12. In a case of this nature, therefore, the High Court should have applied its mind to the fact of the matter with reference to the materials brought on records. It failed to do so.” 23. Furthermore, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the Enquiry Officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the Principles of Natural Justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. 19. The petitioner’s witness No. 1 Abhay Kumar Mishra in clear terms has stated before the inquiry officer that the Nazul Officer has been authorized by the Collector to receive the application regarding determination of Nazul Tax and no material was placed on record to rebut the same, still the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges are partly proved. It is nothing but suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court in view law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of in case of Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 has held as under: “7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The respondent’s case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defense has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the Disciplinary Authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the Appellate Authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. All told the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient either procedurally or otherwise the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the concerned authority to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority or to the Enquiry Officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand. 9. There may be situations where because of a long time lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand. 9. The High Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent had been placed under suspension in the year 2004 and dismissed in the year 2005. The dismissal order was challenged in the High Court in the year 2006 but the writ petition remained pending in the High Court for nearly seven years till 2013. During the intervening period the respondent superannuated on 30th November, 2011. Not only that he had suffered a heart attack and a stroke that has rendered him physically disabled and confined to bed. The respondent may by now have turned 65 years of age. Any remand either to the Enquiry Officer for a fresh enquiry or to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh order or even to the Appellate Authority would thus be very harsh and would practically deny to the respondent any relief whatsoever. Superadded to all this is the fact that the High Court has found, that there was no allegation nor any evidence to show the extent of loss, if any, suffered by the bank on account of the alleged misconduct of the respondent. The discretion vested in the High Court in not remanding the matter back was, therefore, properly exercised. 20. The respondents have framed charges on the basis of alleged violation of Circular dated 25.01.1969 and Revenue Book Circular Part IV Clause I, but these two documents on which they have framed the charges have not been supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests made by the petitioner. The petitioner in clear terms has complained about non supply of the documents causing prejudice to him before the respondents in departmental inquiry as well as at the time of hearing before imposition of punishment and in the appellate stage also, despite this has not been supplied. Therefore, it cannot be said that inquiry officer has conducted inquiry in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, it cannot be said that inquiry officer has conducted inquiry in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice. The non supply of documents causing prejudice to the petitioner to defend himself is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Rajit Singh, 2022 SCC Online 341 in paragraphs 15 has held as under: 15. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the Principles of Natural Justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of Principles of Natural Justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 , which was also pressed into service on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under: “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. [Vide ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya vs. S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293 , U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264 and Union of India vs. Y.S. Sadhu, (2008) 12 SCC 30 ].” 21. [Vide ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya vs. S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293 , U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264 and Union of India vs. Y.S. Sadhu, (2008) 12 SCC 30 ].” 21. The petitioner has also filed application for taking additional documents on record on 05.02.2022 wherein he has annexed the copy of the order passed by the Board of Revenue Case RW/13/R-A-4/47/2009 in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Indrapal Singh Bhatiya dated 27.09.2009 wherein the same issued was raised alleging that because of the act of the petitioner the State has suffered loss to the tune of crores of rupees. The Collector has preferred review application before the Board of Revenue which was rejected the same by recording a finding that there is no such material placed on record to exercise the power of review against the order dated 18.08.2005 passed in Case No. 31/A-4/2004-05, thus the procedure adopted by the petitioner has been recognized by the authority under the Revenue Code still the Disciplinary Authority has held that the charges leveled is partly proved is erroneous finding of facts. 22. The petitioner has also filed detailed appeal raising all the grounds which should have been considered by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal, but the learned appellate authority without assigning any reason has rejected the appeal by recording a finding that the departmental enquiry has been conducted in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice but no reason has been assigned while affirming the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The rejection of appeal without assigning any reason is against the provisions of Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Rule 27 are extracted below: 27. Consideration of appeal: (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. Rule 27 are extracted below: 27. Consideration of appeal: (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider: (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice. (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records. (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass orders: (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty. (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others vs. Madhusudhan Rao, 2008 (3) SCC 469 in Para 17 and 20 has held as under: “17. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy referred to the decision of this Court in R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India and Others, (1986) 2 SCC 651 wherein it was observed that while considering an appeal against an order enhancing any penalty under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, requirements of Rule 27(2) must be complied with and consideration would mean a finding of satisfaction as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with and if not complied with, whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted that the three cases cited by Mr. Gururaja Rao had already been referred to and ultimately the appeal was allowed with the direction on the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal before him afresh after applying his mind to the requirements of Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1965. 20. Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted that the three cases cited by Mr. Gururaja Rao had already been referred to and ultimately the appeal was allowed with the direction on the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal before him afresh after applying his mind to the requirements of Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1965. 20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” 24. The Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the punishment order is neither disproportionate to the misconduct nor shocking to the conscience of the Court, therefore, interference by this Court is not permissible. This submission cannot be considered as the Enquiry Officer without appreciating the evidence, material on record on a perverse finding charges have been found partially proved. This Court in foregoing paragraph already analyzed the material and recorded it finding that inquiry was conducted in violation of Principle of Natural Justice and without any material placed on record in the departmental enquiry. The imposition of punishment for three increments with cumulative effect and reduction of pay scale to lower pay scale is major penalty which definitely not only affect the future aspect of the Government Servant but also deprive the petitioner to get the emoluments which otherwise he is entitled to get as per the pay scale. Therefore, this Court can very well interfere in the quantum of punishment in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. Therefore, this Court can very well interfere in the quantum of punishment in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. From above discussion and considering the materials placed on record it is very much evident that enquiry was conducted in violation of Principles of Natural Justice as documents were not supplied to the petitioner even the Enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence of defence witnesses and also not considered the witness examined by the State and has also not supported the case of the State, still charges have been found partly proved in absence of any such cogent material placed on record by the State there will be no fruitful purpose in remanding the matter to the Enquiry Officer for fresh enquiry on account of non supply of relevant documents to the petitioner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Also, taking into consideration that the State has not proved the case even on the Principles of Probability as no strict law of evidence is applicable in the enquiry proceedings, no positive ground is available on record to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to start fresh departmental enquiry from the stage of supply of documents. 26. Considering the facts and law, this court is of the view that the inquiry officer has recorded his finding of partial guilt on the perverse finding and thereafter Disciplinary Authority has committed illegality in imposing the punishment on an enquiry which is based upon a perverse finding and thereafter appellate authority has passed the order rejecting the appeal without assigning any reason. Thus the orders dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P/1), order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P/2) deserve to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to get all consequential benefits. 27. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed.