Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.2009 visiting him with the punishment of censure to be entered in his character roll for the year 2000-2001, stoppage of three increments with non cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 1,94,643/-. The punishment has been affirmed in appeal on remand by this Court by order dated 24.11.2011.

3. The show cause notice issued alleged that the petitioner was transferred from Khajurdeva to Triveniganj. He did not handover charge of stores valued at Rs. 1,94,643/0 requiring him to explain why it may not be recovered from him.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in his reply on 5.8.2005 the petitioner had taken a specific objection more particularly in paragraphs 8 & 9 of the same that charge was not taken from him as a part of conspiracy despite his repeated efforts and it was now being utilized to fix responsibility upon him. The relieving itself was unilateral in nature depriving him any opportunity to handover the charge. The defence has not been considered or dealt with either in the order of punishment or the appellate order.

5. Counsel for the State submits that the impugned order adequately states that after remand in CWJC No. 11384 of 2011 the authorities had applied their mind consciously to all materials on record. The replies of the Junior Engineer taking charge from him and the Assistant Engineer have all been considered. The letters exchanged between the petitioner and the three engineers and the direction of the superior officers have all been considered. The records revealed that after being relieved the petitioner did not handover the charge for considerable time to the Junior Engineer. He violated the instructions of his superiors and handed over charge belatedly. The boulders for the value of Rs. 1,94,643/- was found short for which he was answerable. At the time of relieving the petitioner did not prepare any charge report with regard to the actual stores. His defence under Rule 254 of the PWD Code had been rejected with reference to 256 of the same holding that it was the duty of the officer to inform that the charge was handed over to his successor.

6. At this stage the Court is only concerned with whether the defence taken by the petitioner has been appropriately considered or not. The acceptability or unacceptability of the defence is an entirely different matter. At the very inception he took the defence of a unilateral relieving order and disinclination to take charge from him despite his repeated efforts to handover the charge. The defence taken undoubtedly cannot be said to be not germane, fanciful or devoid of reasons. The order of punishment dated 2.6.2009 reflects complete non application of mind to the defence when it summarily dismisses it by stating that his defence had been considered. What was considered and why it was not found acceptable is not mentioned in the order. The order of punishment was required to be reasoned disclosing application of mind. Reasons give an insight in to the mind of the maker disclosing in what manner he exercised his powers within the bounds of law by applying his mind to all relevant aspects ignoring irrelevant aspects before coming to the conclusion. Reasons are the ultimate control on arbitrariness. This is facilitated both by requirement to spell out the grounds and also ensures that the decision making authority remains within the bounds of his powers at the stage of decision making. What happens if a cause shown is difficult for the Disciplinary Authority to rebut. It shall be very convenient for him to escape the responsibility, unable to take any different conclusion by simply stating that the defence furnished was not acceptable to him. No further discussion is required that the order of punishment itself was arbitrary.

7. In an appeal arising out of a non speaking order, the responsibility of the Appellate Authority becomes more onerous. If