Point of Law- The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed for following prayers:

“(A) Quash and set aside the punishment order dated 18.3.2013, Annexure-A to this petition, and (B) Quash and set aside the order dated 3.6.2014, Annexure- B to this petition, and”

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the respondent authority, whereby the punishment of reduction of pay by five stages for a period of five years with future effect has been imposed upon him. The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent authority on 30.06.1997 on the post of Deputy Collector and is presently serving on the post of Additional Collector. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 12.11.2010 for the alleged misconduct inter alia stating that while serving as a Deputy Collector, he had passed few orders, which were not in accordance with law and were incorrect. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge-sheet does not contain any allegations against him with regard to extraneous consideration or mala fide motive. After the petitioner submitted his defence statement on 09.12.2010 and after holding of the disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry officer has submitted his report to the respondent authority by holding that the charges are not proved against the petitioner.

2.2 The disciplinary authority, being aggrieved with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, issued a show-cause notice to him dated 10.08.2011 along with the copy of the report of inquiry officer. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply on 05.09.2011 explaining in detail that he has not committed any misconduct. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed imposing penalty of reduction of pay by five stages for a period of five years with future effect by the order dated 18.03.2013. By now, the petitioner has already undergone the penalty. The petitioner accordingly preferred the review application, which was also rejected. Before the impugned punishment order, the petitioner was drawing the pay of Rs.32,220/- in pay-scale of Rs.15600-39100/- with grade pay of Rs.5400/- and pursuant to the punishment order, the petitioner’s pay has been fixed at Rs.27770/- vide pay fixation order dated 19.12.2015.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi has submitted that the entire proceeding, after the inquiry officer held that the charges have not proved against the petitioner, is de hors the settled law. He has submitted that the show-cause notice of disagreement, which was issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2011 along with the reasons in fact, does not deal with any facts nor any reasons for disagreement with the inquiry officer’s report are conveyed and in a very cursorily manner, the findings of the inquiry officer, which are in favour of the petitioner, have been disagreed. While referring to the impugned order, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the same is also a non-speaking order as neither the contents of the reply to the show-cause notice are incorporated nor facts are narrated by the authority and hence, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

3.1 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (4) S.C.C. 153, Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3734 and Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1999 (7) S.C.C. 409 and has submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any misconduct while exercising the quasi-judicial power since all the orders passed by him are passed in exercising of the quasi-judicial authority. He has submitted that for bringing home the charge of misconduct, it has to be examined that any extraneous consideration has weighed upon by the officer, while passing the orders in the quasi-judicial capacity.

4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assi