JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant, was instructed, vide office reference no.1617 dated 18.12.1996 of the District Manager, Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited (OAICL), to keep the records of Agro Machinery Division under the control of R.K. Parida, Asst. Manager. On receipt of the said office order, she entered into the office chamber of the District Manager, OAICL, Ganjam and requested him in a loud voice to cancel the order, in presence of Branch Manager, Parlakhemundi, Sri B.Rajguru and one outsider. In spite of repeated advice of the District Manager to give her problem for consideration in writing, the petitioner left the chamber by tearing office order. She, while leaving the chamber of the District Manager, scolded him at a loud voice outside the chamber in office premises by using rough language. Further, even though she was asked for an explanation, vide office order no.3732 dated 08.07.1996, by the D.G.M. (Admn.) for disobedience of office order, she did not submit the same.

2. Due to above lapses on her part, charges were framed on 06.01.1997 for misconduct, disobedience of office order and insubordination, as well as causing disruption in smooth office work. She was called upon to submit explanation within 30 days as to why she would not be proceeded due to above lapses. In response to the same, she submitted explanation on 16.05.1997. Consequentially, an enquiry was conducted and, by following due procedure as per Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment to the effect that the petitioner be censured, her one increment be withheld without cumulative effect and her period of suspension from 13.12.1996 to the date of joining as per reinstatement order dated 19.06.1997 be treated as such, vide office order dated 05.08.1997 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. Against the said order passed by the Managing Director, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 28.11.1997, which was rejected by the Chairman by the impugned order dated 23.12.1997 in Annexure-5, which is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court in the present writ application.

3. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the order impugned, strenuously urged before this Court that the appellate authority has rejected the appeal without assigning any reason by passing a cryptic order, which cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that even though the writ application was filed in the year 1998, till date no counter affidavit has been filed to controvert the contention raised in the writ application. Therefore, the writ application may be allowed by applying the doctrine of non-traverse, and the impugned order being cryptic one be set aside.

4. Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties states that since the petitioner misconducted herself, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is well within its competence and, as such, the appellate authority having rejected the appeal no illegality or irregularity has been committed so as to warrant interference by this Court.

5. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties, and perused the records.

6. It reveals from the records that though the writ application was filed in the year 1998, no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties in controverting the averments made in the writ application. Therefore, applying the doctrine of non-traverse this Court has to proceed to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings available on records.

7. Coming to the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, a careful perusal of the same would reveal that the same has been passed without any reason and the order is a cryptic one, namely, it is an one line order wherein it has been stated “the appeal pet