JUDGMENT :

1. Heard through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009 issued by the Respondent No.3.

3. Mr. J.P.Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to an order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5839 of 1999(R) and submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court challenging the order of punishment dated 27.11.1998 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the said writ application was disposed of by observing that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory revisional remedy provided under the Act and the respondents were directed to consider the same and also to consider the issue of disproportionate punishment. While referring to the aforesaid judgment learned senior counsel submits that a fresh order has been passed by the appellate authority, but he has not considered the grounds taken by the petitioner and no reason has been assigned in the impugned order. He further contended that there was a specific direction by this Court to consider the issue of proportionality of punishment; however, not even a single line has been uttered by the appellate authority.