P.D.DESAI - (1.)The petitioner was at the material time working as Superintendent and Probation Officer at the observation Home Surendranagar. A charge sheet dated October 14 1974 was served upon him by the Director of Social Defence. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner and they related to his misconduct in not living in the Government premises in the Observation Home where he was required to stay shortage of foodgrains which was detected upon personal inspection and his conduct in making representations to higher authorities otherwise than through proper channel. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet and gave his explanation By an order passed by the Director of Social Defence on May 19 1975 the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to have been proved and the following final order was passed:
"Two increments of Shri B. K. Acharya Superintendent of the Observation Home of Surendranagar are withheld with future effect and he is transferred to a place outside Surendranagar by way of penalty. (Translated into English from Gujarati)" The petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government against the aforesaid order on May 30 1975 In his long memo of appeal the petitioner raised several grounds. He inter alia challenged the order of penalty on the ground that transfer by way of penalty could not have been ordered especially when the punishment of witholding of two increments was already inflicted upon him. It appears that the appeal was not disposed of for quite some time and therefore the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 727 of 1976 in this Court. On May 5 1976 a statement was made on behalf of the State Government in the said writ petition that the appeal will be heard and disposed of on or before June 15 1976 and thereupon the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. It appears that after the withdrawal of the writ petition the petitioner made an application to the Director of Social Defence requesting her to give copies of and/or to give him access to certain records in order to enable him to prosecute his appeal and make his submissions before the appellate authority. This request was contained in a letter dated July 16 1976 It does not appear from the material on record that this request was complied with. The petitioner thereupon made a representation in writing dated July 19 1976 to the Joint Secretary to the Government Education and Labour Department who was to give a hearing to the petitioner in respect of his appeal and lodged a complaint with regard to his having not been supplied with the documents and made it explicitly clear that as a result of non supply of the documents he had no alternative but to confine his submission to the material already in his possession. The petitioner was given hearing on the same day by the Joint Secretary. By an order dated July 31 1976 Annexure O the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.)Now the appellate order to put it middly is terse and laconic. In the first paragraph of the said order a brief history of the proceedings and the summary of the charges are set out. The second paragraph contains the material part of the decision. When translated into English it reads as follows :
"The appeal of Shri Acharya was fixed on July 19 1976 for affording to both the parties an opportunity of being heard in person. On a consideration of the appeal in the light of the submissions made at the hearing of the appeal it appears to the Government that the charges levelled against Shri Acharya are established and that the penalty imposed by the Director of Social Defence under her order dated May 19 1975 is proper and in accordance with the Rules. There does not appear to be any valid reasons to review the same. The appeal of Shri B. R Acharya is therefore hereby dismissed". This order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the disciplinary authority is under challenge herein

(3.)The impugned order is challenged on diverse grounds. However it is not necessary to enter into consideration of all those grounds because it appears to me that the petitioner is entitled to succeed straightway on the short ground that the appellate authority which has passed the ultimate order in the disciplinary proceeding has failed to apply its mind to the relevant points raised for its consideration by the petitioner and that it has also failed to make a speaking order which in the special circumstances of the case it was expected to make.