JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the penalty order dated 28.05.2011 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (for short “CISF”) Unit Bhakokoli, Dhanbad; whereby the petitioner was imposed penalty of “compulsory retirement”. The Appellate Order dated 06.08.2011 passed by DIG, CISF, Dhanbad is also under challenge. 3. The facts of the case are that this petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 as Assistant Sub-Inspector/Exe. in CISF. While he was posted as such at CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad a charge memo was issued to him on 22.12.2010. It was alleged that illegal money was collected from the members of Truck Owners Association by the members of CISF which was detected on 10.12.2010 by the Assistant Commandant. The petitioner submitted reply thereto. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 08.04.2011 holding the charge proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 28.05.2011 which was affirmed by Appellate Authority by order dated 06.08.2011. 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 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.He further submits that there is no parity in punishment imposed upon the petitioner and the other co-delinquents who were involved in the same alleged misconduct. Learned counsel submits 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. He further submits that the Commandant became the Judge of his own cause in the present case. Accordingly, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India submits that a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by framing a memo of charge. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Report was submitted against the petitioner holding the charges proved. The penalty order was thereafter imposed after considering all aspects of the matter. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India submits that a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by framing a memo of charge. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Report was submitted against the petitioner holding the charges proved. The penalty order was thereafter imposed after considering all aspects of the matter. Such penalty order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, therefore, learned counsel prays that this court should not interfere in the matter of departmental proceeding and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 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. 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, inasmuch 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 dated02.02.2011.However, no reason has been assigned as to why this petitioner has been imposed punishment of compulsory retirement; 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. 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 the involvement 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 bythe 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 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 (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. 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. In the light of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order of compulsory retirement dated 28.05.2011 as also the appellate order dated 06.08.2011, are hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including continuity in service. 10. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, also stands closed.