ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

^^7-1 ;g fd] vihy esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 5-3-2012 ,oa foÒkxh; tk¡p esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-11-2010 fujLr djus dh Ñik djsaA
7-2 ;g fd] çkFkÊ d¢ fgr esa vU; d¨Ã lgk;rk g¨ mls çnku djsaA**

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to imposing the major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the reply dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P/20). It is further submitted that without dealing with the facts and grounds raised in the said reply, a non-speaking and unreasoned order imposing the impugned major punishment was passed by order dated 24.11.2010. This aspect was also not considered by the appellate Authority, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 5.3.2012.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellate Authority duly considered each and every fact mentioned in the appeal memo and passed a reasoned and speaking order/ appeal rejection order dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has also examined the entire record and on perusal of the material, the order of the competent authority was affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present matter and petition prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the only scope of interference in the cases of punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is conducted. In the present case the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in view of the norms of natural justice and fair play. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also relied upon the order dated 23.7.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors. in W.P.No.6668/2010. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of this petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Important part of the punishment order dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure P/28) is quoted herein below:-

^^dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad 1640@fo- tka@2010 fnukad 7-8-2010 d¢ vuqlkj vipkjh deZpkjh Jh panuflag Ò`R; d¨ tk¡p çfrosnu dh çfr nh tkdj 15 fnol esa vH;kosnu çLrqr dj viuk cpko i{k j[kus gsrq le; fn;k x;k ftld¢ lacaèk esa vipkjh deZpkjh us viuk vH;kosnu fnukad 20-8-2010 d¨ çLrqr fd;kA
vr% Jh panuflag Ò`R; }kjk çLrqr vH;kosnu vekU; fd;k tkdj foÒkxh; tk¡p vfèkdkjh }kjk çLrqr çfrosnu vuqlkj vipkjh deZpkjh d¢ vkj¨i çekf.kr ik, x,A
Jh panuflag Ò`R;] jktLo e.My] eè; çns'k] Xokfy;j ij vfèkj¨fir vkj¨i fl) ik, tkus d¢ dkj.k Jh panuflag Ò`R; dh n¨ osruo`f) e-ç- flfoy lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1966 d¢ fu;e 14 dh dafMdk d¢ rgr lap;h çÒko ls j¨d¢ tkus d¢ n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fuyacu dkj.k¨a d¨ ns; LoRo¨a dk Òqxrku lfgr lÒh ç;¨tu gsrq lsok vofèk ekU; dh tkrh gSA^^

6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.11.2010, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while passing an order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, is exercising quasi judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. The Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its conclusion.

7. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.

8. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to e