Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioner was working as Sahayak Vasil Baki Navis, in the Collectorate of District Baghpat. A charge-sheet was drawn up against the petitioner on 20.10.2006 wherein charges were laid out against him. In substance the charges laid out against the petitioner alleged that the petitioner had forged signatures of the Tehsildar Baghpat in some orders. He was also responsible for loss of official records. The petitioner tendered his defence in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner squarely contested the aforesaid charges. In the course of the enquiry proceeding the petitioner specifically prayed for calling for a report of a handwriting expert to examine the issue of alleged forgery of signatures.

2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.7.2007. The petitioner tendered his reply to the show cause notice and refuted the charges against him. He also highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry which had prejudiced his defence.

3. The disciplinary authority terminated the services of the petitioner by the order dated 28.12.2007.

4. The petitioner took the order of termination in appeal before the competent authority under the Rules. The appellate authority by order dated 21.4.2008 rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 28.12.2007 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 21.04.2008. The petitioner has assailed both the orders in the instant writ petition.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. K. Parekh assisted by Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel is that the appellate authority has not considered the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. The order reflects non application of mind.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. A perusal of the memo of appeal as well as additional memo of appeal shows that various germane issues were raised by the petitioner in his defence. The petitioner had raised these issues from the very inception of the disciplinary proceedings against him. The stand of the petitioner is consistent and was taken in the first instance before the disciplinary authority and subsequently before the appellate authority.

9. By way of exemplar is the ground raised by the petitioner in regard to non furnishing of the documentary evidences mentioned in the charge-sheet and proposed to be relied upon in support of the charges against the petitioner. Failure to call for a handwriting expert report to examine the issue of forgery of signatures was among the other grounds of challenge in the appeal. These are some of the many grounds raised in the memo of appeal which go to the root of the disciplinary proceedings. These issues were required to be verified and independently examined by the appellate authority. The appellate authority is under an obligation of law to return independent findings by a reasoned and speaking orders on all the issues of fact and law raised by the petitioner which are germane to his defence. The appellate authority has failed to discharge its obligation imposed by law. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority on 21.4.2008 shows absolute non consideration of the issues raised by the petitioner in his defence and non application of mind to the grounds raised in the appeal. The so called findings and the conclusion of the appellate authority are extracted hereunder:-

^^Jh ujs'k pUnz oekZ }kjk nk;j dh xbZ vihy ds lkFk tkap vk[;k dk esjs }kjk Hkyh HkkWafr voyksdu fd;k x;kA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk Jh ujs'k pUnz oekZ ds fo:) 38 vkjksi yxk;s x;s gSa] ftlesa vkjksi la[;k &35] 36 o 36 ¼rhu vkjksi½ dks NksM+dj vU; lHkh iw.kZ :i ls fl) ik;s x;s gSA bl izdkj ftykf/kdkjh] ckxir }kjk fn;k x;k n.M mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA^^

10. The scope and the power of the appellate authority as claimed the attention of the courts. The courts have consistently held that the appellate authority is the last tri