JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service dated 28.05.2011 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Bhakokoli Unit, Dhanbad. The appellate order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CISF, Bhakokoli Unit, Dhanbad is also under challenge in the writ petition. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in CISF in the year 2009. While he was posted as such at CISF, Bhakokoli Unit, Dhanbad, a memo of charge was framed against him on 22.12.2010. It was alleged that this petitioner was found involved in taking bribe from the Truck Owners Committee which amounted to indiscipline, dereliction of duty and hence he was proceeded departmentally. The petitioner was directed to submit reply to the memo of charge which was submitted by him on31.12.2010.During course of departmental proceeding, four witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 08.04.2011 by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Finally, the penalty order was passed on 28.05.2011, whereby the petitioner was removed from service.The petitioner challenged the said penalty order before the appellate authority which was also dismissed on06.08.2011. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the penalty order and also the appellate order are neither sustainable in law, nor on facts. He submits that the petitioner was on leave at the date and time of occurrence. He submits that since the petitioner was on leave on the date of alleged misconduct, he cannot be penalized.He further submits that it is a case of no evidence as none of the witnesses examined during the departmental proceeding has stated as to who was taking the bribe, what was the amount of bribe, from whom the bribe was taken, and what amount of money was seized.Learned counsel further submits that there is no parity in punishment imposed upon the petitioner viz-a-viz the other persons who were allegedly involved in the alleged misconduct. It has been submitted that Shri Krishna Rai, the Inspector/Exe. was just given warning and Shri Hari Singh, the Assistant Commandant was just issued advisory memo for the alleged misconduct. It has been submitted that Shri Krishna Rai, the Inspector/Exe. was just given warning and Shri Hari Singh, the Assistant Commandant was just issued advisory memo for the alleged misconduct. These documents have been placed on record as Annexure-10 and 10/A to the rejoinder of supplementary counter affidavit.He finally submits that in the instant case the Commandant became the Judge of his own cause. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has argued that in a departmental proceeding the Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of the Authority. He submits that a departmental proceeding was initiated by framing a memo of charge. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer held the charge proved against the petitioner. It is further argued that after considering every aspect of the matter, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner tried his best before the appellate authority but the appellate order also came against the petitioner by dismissing the departmental appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no case made out by the petitioner to interfere in the present matter. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the respective affidavits it appears that the evidences collected during the preliminary enquiry has been taken into consideration to award punishment which is not permissible in the eye of law.Further, the evidence which was collected during the preliminary enquiry is that of Commandant who was present on the spot, who collected the information and subsequently he himself became the disciplinary authority. It is well settled law on this point that no one can become the Judge of his own cause. 7. It further appears that the other persons involved in the misconduct were left with minor punishment as Inspector Krishna Rai was given just warning, which is evident from the decision dated 31.01.2011 by the Commandant, CISF, Bhakokoli, Dhanbad. Similarly, Shri Hari Singh also for the same alleged misconduct was issued just caution and advice to mend his ways and to improve his work and conduct and the same is also evident from advisory note dated 02.02.2011.However, no reason has been assigned as to why this petitioner has been removed from service; whereas others were let off by warning and advisory memo. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 73 in particular paragraph 9, which is quoted herein below: “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing theinvolvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” 8. Now coming to the order passed by the appellate authority; the same appears to be non-speaking and cryptic order. The grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal have not been considered by the appellate authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 at paragraph 19 has held that the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. The formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: “19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application ofmind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application ofmind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar and Bhikhubhai Vithalabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat).” In the case in hand the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of the CISF Rules. 9. Having regard to the above discussions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the penalty order of removal from service dated 28.05.2011 as also the appellate order dated 06.08.2011, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including continuity in service except back wages for which he would be at liberty to file an application before the concerned authority, who shall pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, also stands closed.