JUDGMENT : (Sandeep Sharma, J. ) Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, whereby appeal dated 14.10.2011 having been filed by the petitioner, laying therein challenge to order dated 5.11.2004, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner on account of his having forged official documents, came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner has failed to adhere to the principle of natural justice because at no point of time, petitioner was ever afforded opportunity of hearing, rather aforesaid authority simply on the basis of comments furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, proceeded to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. While making this Court peruse appeal (Annexure P-7), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though petitioner had raised number of grounds in appeal, but none of them ever came to be considered by the Divisional Commissioner, as a result thereof, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, who otherwise, in criminal proceedings, stands acquitted. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, strenuously argued that Divisional Commissioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and perusing record made available by the Deputy Commissioner, rightly dismissed appeal. He further submitted that petitioner though may have been acquitted in criminal case, but fact remains that in disciplinary proceedings, it was proved beyond doubt that he forged as many as 192 licences. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that FIR under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 was registered against the petitioner on 6.6.2011, while he was working as Licensing Clerk in the office of SDO (Civil) Palampur, on the allegations that he forged signatures of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Palampur, and issued 192 licenses. On the basis of aforesaid charge, respondent-department besides initiating Disciplinary proceedings also lodged aforesaid FIR, as a result thereof, criminal case was also registered against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid charge, respondent-department besides initiating Disciplinary proceedings also lodged aforesaid FIR, as a result thereof, criminal case was also registered against the petitioner. Though vide judgment dated 6.6.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case, but fact remains that in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department, charges were proved against him, as a result thereof, Disciplinary Authority on the basis of inquiry report proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner vide order dated 5.11.2004. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, petitioner straightaway approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7174 of 2008, but same was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before appellate authority within four weeks. Pursuant to order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the writ court, petitioner filed an appeal to Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, who vide order dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P-8), dismissed the appeal on the ground that quality of evidence in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probability, which exists on record and as such, there can be no bearing, if any, of acquittal of the petitioner in criminal proceedings on departmental proceedings. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings 7. Having carefully perused impugned order dated 9.3.2012, vis-à-vis grounds taken in appeal, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that appellate authority while deciding the appeal failed to take note of grounds taken in appeal, rather aforesaid authority simply on the basis of comments furnished by Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala, who actually had imposed penalty of termination on the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 8. Though there cannot be any quarrel with the finding returned by the aforesaid authority that quality of evidence in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probability, but once by way of appeal, petitioner had raised certain issues with regard to appreciation of the evidence before the inquiry officer, afore authority was expected to deal with each and every ground taken in appeal, however in the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that afore authority ever afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Afore authority simply taking note of grounds of appeal called for comments from the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Afore authority simply taking note of grounds of appeal called for comments from the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. There is nothing in the aforesaid order to suggest that effort, if any, was ever made by the appellate authority to look into the correctness of the allegations/ grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal. 9. Once there is a provision of statutory appeal in the rules for laying challenge to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is obligatory on the part of the authority to decide the appeal taking note of grounds of appeal as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, however, in the instant case, appellate authority appears to have decided the appeal simply on the basis of comments furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, who otherwise had imposed penalty of termination upon the petitioner. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Order dated dated 9.3.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, is quashed with further direction to afore authority to decide appeal of the petitioner afresh expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of grounds taken in the appeal as well as observations made in the instant order. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before the afore authority on 7.5.2025 , enabling it to proceed with the matter and decide the same within stipulated time.