IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13413 OF 2007 DINESH JHA, S/O LATE NAGESHWAR JHA, R/O VILLAGE DHADHI, P.S NANPUR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR(SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE TREASURY OFFICER, VAISHALI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 13.10.2011 Heard Mr. Kamal Narayan Choubey, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pushkar Narain Sahi, learned A.A.G- 14 for the State. Assailing the order of punishment dated 08.06.2006 and the appellate order dated 05.04.2007, though Mr. Choubey learned senior counsel has submitted that it was case of no evidence and thus both the orders are wholly unsustainable, he however has confined his submissions that the appellate order was wholly mechanical and perverse order disclosing no independent application of mind by the Appellate Authority. As a matter of fact, learned A.A.G 14 could not dispute the admitted position 2 that the impugned Appellate Order was a mechanical order and did not contain any reason in support of the conclusion arrived by the Appellate Authority. This court is also satisfied that the appellate order contained in Annexure- 13 dismissing the appeal only by recording as follows:- mDr daMks ds fo:) Jh >k us vk;qDr lg lfpo eku lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds le{k vihy vH;kosnu izLrqr fd;k ftl ij vk;qDr lg lfpo }kjk fuEukafdr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;sA 1- vihy vkosnu dk v/;;u fd;k] vkjksi foRrh; ekeyks ls gS rFkk xaHkhj gS foHkkxh; inkf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s naM esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu ugh fn[krk vihy vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA cannot be said to be a proper application of mind by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is supposed to consider the defence of the delinquent as against the order of punishment and record its independent reasons, inasmuch as, the Appellate Authority is the last and final fact finding Authority. An appellate order in a disciplinary proceeding, therefore, has to show some independent application of mind. Reference in this connection may be 3 made to the judgment of the Apex court in the cases of Bhagat Raja vs Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1606 and Ram Chander Vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173. That being so, this court would find that the appellate order dated 05.04.2007, is wholly unsustainable either in fact or in law. The appellate order dated 05.04.2007 contained in Annexure-13 is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority namely, the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department, who would now pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the petitioner has already retired from service such exercise by the Departmental Secretary must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)