ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned orders passed by authorities below dated 18.02.2008 as well as dated 22.10.2008 at Annexures A and B respectively.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined the service of respondent authority on 03.06.1971 on the post of Agriculture Supervisor and during the passage of time, petitioner was also promoted to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture. The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Deputy Director, Horticulture, he was served with the chargesheet on 12.12.2003 for alleged misconduct committed by him and the said charge-sheet was replied by way of tendering defence statement on 12.01.2004, ultimately, after considering the defence statement of petitioner, authority was pleased to appoint an Inquiry Officer vide order dated 11.03.2004. On 21.04.2004 as well as on 30.04.2004, the petitioner made a request to supply certain relevant documents so as to see that proper defence be presented. However, the said request has not been acceded to which has given rise to filing of detailed representation to Inquiry Officer on 26.10.2004.

2.1 It is further the case of the petitioner that after conducting regular departmental inquiry, a report was prepared by Inquiry Officer on 31.12.2004 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are partly proved and the said inquiry report was submitted by respondent authority to the petitioner alongwith the show-cause notice dated 04.03.2005. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice on 28.03.2005 and based upon the material including the report of the inquiry, disciplinary authority was pleased to pass an order of penalty on 18.02.2008 imposing punishment of pension cut of Rs.700/- per month for a period of three years.

2.2 The petitioner has preferred an appeal / review before the appellate authority on 01.04.2008, however, the appellate authority has rejected the same vide order dated 22.10.2008. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision passed by the respondent authority has approached this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner appears to have been admitted vide order dated 12.04.2010 and thereafter, has come up for consideration today before this Court in which Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate has represented the petitioner and Mr. K. M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authority.

4. It is contended by Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate that the entire inquiry has been conducted at the instance of respondent No.2 as he was having a personal grudge with petitioner and element of bias is clearly reflecting from not only the proceedings but from the assertion which has also been made from paragraph Nos. 4.2 to 4.8 and as such on account of this bias attitude the petitioner has been dealt with and ultimately made to face with the penalty.

4.1 It has been submitted that petitioner is an innocent person, has not committed any such illegality nor irregularity, as mentioned. On the contrary, a detailed explanation has been submitted by way of defence statement which has not at all being considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned orders.

4.2 Mr.Vyas, learned advocate has submitted that it is trite law that every exercise of jurisdiction or powers, either it is administrative, quasi judicial or judicial must be backed by proper and cogent reasons and must reflect an application of mind. Ex facie, a bare perusal of both orders would clearly indicate that none of the stand which have been taken by the petitioner has been dealt with by any of the authorities who passed the impugned orders. For substantiating this contention, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate has drawn the attention of t