1 W.P.No.2279/11 with W.P.No.2711/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2279 OF 2011. Mujawar Sirajuddin Fakira Ahmed, Aged 50 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher, R/o Sawargaon (P), Tq. Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2711 OF 2011 Anandrao Jayawantrao Musande, Aged 39 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher, R/o Sawargaon (P), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 2 W.P.No.2279/11 with W.P.No.2711/11 2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. Mr.S.R.Chaukidar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Leave to amend. 3. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 4. The petitioners are Assistant Teachers. Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the petitioners on 9 charges. Out of said nine charges, three charges were held to be proved. 3 W.P.No.2279/11 with W.P.No.2711/11 The punishment was imposed on the petitioners in the shape of stoppage of one increment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 5. Mr.Chaukidar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charges levied are trifle. No proper inquiry was conducted. The petitioners had given the details of the compliance of their duties but the same were not considered. Without any evidence three charges were held to be proved. The learned counsel further contends that even the appellate authority has not considered the arguments advanced before it. No reasons are given by the Commissioner while confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioners. 6. Mr.Panpatte, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that after making a detail inquiry and giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the order was passed. The same can 4 W.P.No.2279/11 with W.P.No.2711/11 not be faulted with and as the Commissioner was confirming the order, he is not required to give detail reasons. 7. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2 supports the order passed by the authority. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments passed by the appellate authority. Perusal of the judgments, it is manifest that the appellate authority has not given any reasons. The reasons are the life line of any order, whether quasi judicial or executive. The reasons depict the application of mind on the part of the authority. The order does not show that the appellate authority has considered the arguments advanced before it nor has given any reason for confirming the order. The order passed by the appellate authority only states that the inquiry was conducted, show cause notice was issued and the Inquiry Officer held the charges to be proved. Apart from that no reasons are given. Such an 5 W.P.No.2279/11 with W.P.No.2711/11 order can not be sustained. 9. In light of the above, the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 16.4.2009, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Respondent No.2 to decide it afresh. 10. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the Respondent No.2 on 5.8.2011. The Respondent No.2 shall after giving opportunity of hearing to either of the parties, decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp227911 6 W.P.No.2279/11 with W.P.No.2711/11