Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.S. Tripathi, learned State counsel and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed in the Agriculture Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh on Grade III post by order dated 15.6.1964 passed by Director of Agriculture and posted as Assistant Agriculture Inspector at Government Agriculture Seed Store, Manglaur, Saharanpur.

3. By an order dated 31.1.1978 (Annexure 4), he was placed under suspension. On 19.5.1978 (Annexure 5) a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner, after receiving same, as per the version of the petitioner, he demanded certain documents but the same has not been supplied to him, as such being no other alternative left before him, submitted his reply on 5.9.1978 (Annexure 6) inter alia denying charges leveled against him and in his reply he stated that Sri Suresh Chand Sharma was responsible for the embezzlement of DAP fertilizer who had received the fertilizer stock in question thereafter inquiry was conducted by Inquiry Officer who submitted the inquiry report to the punishing authority/Director of Agriculture/O.P. No. 1.

4. On 3.11.1980 (Annexure 2) the punishing authority/O.P. No. 1 passed the impugned punishment order thereby dismissing the petitioner’s services and three other charges were also leveled against him including the recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,017.24 from the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Lastly by a letter/order dated 16th March, 1991 (Annexure 1), it was informed that the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner’s appeal after due consideration. Hence, present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 16.3.1991 (Annexure 1) and 3.11.1980 (Annexure 2).

6. Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner in brief has assailed the impugned orders firstly on the ground that in the present case the inquiry officer after conducting the inquiry proceedings, in his inquiry report proposed the punishment which is to be awarded to the petitioner. The said action on his part is contrary to law as he has got no authority whatsoever to propose punishment to be given to the petitioner. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court given in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236.

7. Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 3.11.1980 (Annexure 2) passed by O.P. No. 1 is a non-speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the said order as after refering the charges in impugned order, the punishing authority in the operative portion stated that he agreed with the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and accordingly the punishment as suggested therein has been awarded. Hence, the said impugned order is a non-speaking order, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice.

8. Lastly it is argued by Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner that aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.1980 (Annexure 2) passed by O.P. No. 1, the petitioner filed an appeal on 20.2.1981 and after lapse of more than 10 years, it was communicated to him by an order dated 16.3.1991 ((Annexure 1) that the appellate authority after considering his case, has rejected the appeal. However, no order of rejection of the appeal has been given to him. The said action on the part of appellate authority is contrary to law as well as principles of natural justice. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806.

9. Accordingly, Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for