Order : AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/1), whereby a recovery of Rs. 57,44,709/- has been made against the petitioner. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 28,30,134/-, representing the retiral dues payable to the late husband of petitioner, Shri B.R. Kurre, has been adjusted towards the recovery, while the remaining amount of Rs. 29,14,575/- has been proposed to be recovered from the petitioner on the basis of the land records. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 passed in the departmental enquiry proceedings, as well as the appellate order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) and prayed for following reliefs : 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing/setting-aside the impugned orders dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) and 05.10.2020 & 16.12.2021 (Annexure PA). 8/2415123. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund/release the unpaid salary from Sep., 2016 to January, 2017, arrears of Sixth Pay Commission for the period from 18.02.2016 to 31.08.2016, family welfare fund, group insurance, leave encashment, gratuity and amount towards general provident fund and also release family pension in favour of petitioner, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.3 Pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the husband of petitioner Late Shri B.R. Kurre, was initially appointed to the post of Village Level Worker on 23.06.1977 under the Agriculture Department. Over the course of his long and meritorious service, he was promoted to the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer and was posted at Pendra during the year 2012. While discharging his duties as Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Pendra, the husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur vide order dated 07.02.2012, on the allegation of failure to discharge the duties entrusted to him during the financial year 2011– 2012. Subsequently, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, framed charges against the husband of petitioner on 25.05.2012 and proposed initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings against him. Subsequently, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, framed charges against the husband of petitioner on 25.05.2012 and proposed initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings against him. In order to properly defend himself and to submit a comprehensive and just reply to the charges levelled against him, the husband of petitioner submitted a representation on 05.06.2012 before the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, requesting supply of certified copies of relevant documents relied upon in the departmental proceedings. However, no response was received from the said authority. Consequently, another representation dated 08.06.2012 was made to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, again seeking certified copies of documents connected with the departmental enquiry, so as to enable him to effectively respond to the charges and avail a fair opportunity of hearing. In the meantime, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur also lodged an FIR at Police Station, Pendra on 26.06.2012, being Crime No. 61/2012, alleging commission of criminal breach of trust by the husband of petitioner for a sum of Rs. 10,38,400/-. On the basis of the said FIR, criminal proceedings were also initiated against him. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the husband of petitioner persistently made several representations before various departmental authorities throughout the year 2012, raising grievances regarding the improper conduct of the enquiry and seeking copies of relevant documents to prepare an appropriate defence. However, the department failed to furnish any of the requested documents. He again submitted a representation on 30.10.2012 to the Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, reiterating his request for certified copies of documents and an opportunity of fair hearing in the departmental proceedings. Subsequently, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur cancelled the earlier departmental enquiry on 06.02.2013, and a fresh departmental enquiry was initiated at the Directorate level on the same set of charges. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner made yet another representation dated 28.10.2014 to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Raipur, again seeking copies of the enquiry-related documents to enable him to submit a proper reply and participate effectively in the enquiry proceedings. Despite repeated requests, the authorities failed to supply the necessary documents to the husband of petitioner. Instead, the Director, Agriculture, Raipur, vide letter dated 11.12.2015, informed him that the Enquiry Officer had already proceeded ex parte, concluded the departmental enquiry, and submitted the enquiry report to the Directorate. The said letter further directed the husband of petitioner to submit his reply to the enquiry report within fifteen (15) days. Instead, the Director, Agriculture, Raipur, vide letter dated 11.12.2015, informed him that the Enquiry Officer had already proceeded ex parte, concluded the departmental enquiry, and submitted the enquiry report to the Directorate. The said letter further directed the husband of petitioner to submit his reply to the enquiry report within fifteen (15) days. In compliance with the aforesaid letter, the husband of petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 23.12.2015 to the Director, Agriculture, Raipur, specifically stating that he had not been afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and that the enquiry proceedings had been conducted ex parte, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the enquiry report had been submitted and the husband of petitioner had also filed his reply thereto, the Director, Agriculture, Raipur, revoked his suspension order vide order dated 10.02.2016, and he was reinstated and posted under the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Balrampur–Ramanujganj. The husband of petitioner was again placed under suspension by the Directorate on 25.01.2017, and later reinstated and posted under the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur vide order dated 29.04.2017. He attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 29.04.2017, as 30.04.2017 being a holiday, his retirement took effect on the previous working day. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Marwahi, Pendra passed a judgment dated 29.02.2020 in Crime No. 61/2012, convicting the husband of petitioner for the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust. Despite the repeated representations and clear denial of opportunity of hearing, the Directorate of Agriculture, Raipur, proceeded to pass an ex parte order dated 05.10.2020, holding the husband of petitioner guilty in the departmental enquiry and directing recovery of the alleged loss from him. By that time, the husband of petitioner had already retired from service, and therefore, the said order directed recovery of the amount from his retiral dues. Aggrieved thereby, the husband of petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 24.10.2020, challenging the departmental order on the grounds of denial of natural justice and non-supply of documents. Meanwhile, the husband of petitioner also preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Learned Sessions Court against the order of conviction passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Marwahi, Pendra in Crime No. 61/2012. The learned Sessions Court, upon detailed consideration, vide judgment dated 10.06.2021, acquitted the husband of petitioner of all the charges. Meanwhile, the husband of petitioner also preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Learned Sessions Court against the order of conviction passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Marwahi, Pendra in Crime No. 61/2012. The learned Sessions Court, upon detailed consideration, vide judgment dated 10.06.2021, acquitted the husband of petitioner of all the charges. Ignoring the said order of acquittal and without appreciating the documents and submissions made by the husband of petitioner, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.12.2021, dismissed the departmental appeal, merely relying upon the report of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, and holding that the representation was unsatisfactory. The said order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and without due consideration of the acquittal judgment. Subsequently, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, vide letter dated 22.11.2021, directed the petitioner’s husband to deposit the amount held recoverable under the departmental proceedings or to submit an affidavit consenting to recovery of the amount from his retiral dues and/or through land revenue proceedings. Unfortunately, the husband of petitioner, Late Shri B.R. Kurre, expired on 24.12.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the departmental enquiry initially initiated by the Deputy Director, Bilaspur was later cancelled, and a fresh enquiry was conducted at the Directorate level by adopting the earlier charge-sheet as it was. Throughout the entire process, the husband of petitioner was not furnished with the requisite documents nor granted a fair opportunity to defend himself. The departmental enquiry, thus, stood vitiated on account of gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved by the departmental orders dated 05.10.2020 and 16.12.2021, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 1078 of 2023 before this Court. Vide order dated 07.02.2023, this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 4 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of three months. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 4 and requested for appropriate consideration of her pending representation. However, vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/1), the respondent No. 4 has proceeded to make a recovery of Rs. 57,44,709/- against the petitioner, out of which Rs. 28,30,134/- representing the retiral dues payable to the late husband of petitioner has been adjusted, and the balance amount of Rs. 29,14,575/- has been proposed to be recovered from the petitioner based on land records. 57,44,709/- against the petitioner, out of which Rs. 28,30,134/- representing the retiral dues payable to the late husband of petitioner has been adjusted, and the balance amount of Rs. 29,14,575/- has been proposed to be recovered from the petitioner based on land records. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary, unjust, and illegal action of the respondents, the petitioner is constrained to prefer the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) and 05.10.2020 (Annexure P/2) are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law and therefore deserve to be quashed by this Court. The impugned orders have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without affording the petitioner or her late husband any fair or reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, and are consequently void ab initio. Pursuant to the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 25.05.2012, the husband of petitioner made several representations to the departmental authorities requesting supply of certified copies of documents relied upon in the charge-sheet to enable him to submit an effective reply in the departmental enquiry. Despite repeated written requests, no response or compliance was made by the authorities, and no certified copies of the required documents were ever furnished. This deliberate denial of essential documents deprived the husband of petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend himself, rendering the entire departmental proceedings vitiated and illegal. On multiple occasions, the husband of petitioner addressed representations to the respondents specifically identifying the documents required to prepare his reply to the charge-sheet. Despite explicitly detailing the list of documents sought and emphasizing their necessity for a proper defence, the respondents chose to remain silent and did not act upon the repeated requests. Such inaction on part of the respondents constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem, i.e., the right to be heard. On 30.10.2012, the husband of petitioner again wrote to the competent authority, bringing to their notice that the enquiry was being conducted in contravention of the principles of natural justice, as he had not been provided with the required documents to submit a reply to the charge-sheet. Even then, the authorities failed to respond, thereby reinforcing the arbitrary and prejudiced conduct of the enquiry proceedings. Even then, the authorities failed to respond, thereby reinforcing the arbitrary and prejudiced conduct of the enquiry proceedings. The denial of documents amounted to a denial of fair hearing, which goes to the root of the validity of any disciplinary proceeding. Once again, on 28.10.2014, the husband of petitioner made a fresh representation seeking the same documents from the respondents in order to file a detailed and meaningful reply to the charge-sheet. However, the said request also met with no response. Such persistent disregard of representations over several years reflects mala fide intention on the part of the authorities and demonstrates that the enquiry was conducted merely as a formality, without adherence to the principles of fairness and due process. Instead of supplying the relevant records and documents requested by the husband of petitioner, the respondent authority, vide letter dated 11.12.2015, informed him that the Enquiry Officer had already concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the Directorate. The said communication further directed the husband of petitioner to submit his reply to the enquiry report within 15 days, thereby compelling him to respond to a report of which he was unaware of the contents, without ever having been supplied the supporting documents or given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. This action is per se arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of administrative law. The entire departmental enquiry was conducted ex parte against the husband of petitioner, depriving him of any opportunity to defend himself, present his own evidence, or cross-examine witnesses produced by the department. Such unilateral conduct of an enquiry is contrary to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the findings of such an enquiry, based on unilateral evidence, cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The original charge-sheet was prepared and issued by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, and later, the Directorate of Agriculture, Raipur, initiated a fresh departmental enquiry at the Directorate level by merely adopting the same charge-sheet and list of witnesses as in the earlier enquiry, without issuing any fresh charge-sheet or giving the husband of petitioner an opportunity to make a representation afresh. The mere adoption of a previous charge-sheet in a new proceeding violates the principle of independent and fair adjudication, and renders the entire process non est in the eyes of law. 4. The mere adoption of a previous charge-sheet in a new proceeding violates the principle of independent and fair adjudication, and renders the entire process non est in the eyes of law. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the departmental enquiry conducted at the Directorate level, no fresh charge-sheet was framed, no list of documents or witnesses was communicated, and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the husband of petitioner. The Directorate simply relied upon the earlier material prepared by the Deputy Director, Bilaspur, and proceeded mechanically without following the due procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. This procedural illegality vitiates the enquiry from inception. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the husband of petitioner had already been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court in the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 61/2012 vide judgment dated 10.06.2021, and that he had already been reinstated in service prior to his retirement. The Appellate Authority completely ignored this material fact and erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the conviction still stood, thereby demonstrating total non-application of mind. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, had already initiated recovery proceedings even before the passing of the order by the Appellate Authority, which itself shows that the respondents had pre-determined the outcome of the appeal, making the appellate process a mere empty formality. Such conduct strikes at the root of fair administrative procedure and renders the orders null and void. Throughout the proceedings, the husband of petitioner was not granted a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing as mandated by law. The departmental enquiry and subsequent appellate proceedings were conducted in a manner that violated every facet of the principles of natural justice, including the right to notice, the right to representation, and the right to a reasoned order. The Appellate Authority failed to consider or address the major grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner in his appeal. The authority, without engaging with the substantive arguments or examining the procedural irregularities, dismissed the appeal in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, thus failing to exercise its statutory duty under Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The authority, without engaging with the substantive arguments or examining the procedural irregularities, dismissed the appeal in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, thus failing to exercise its statutory duty under Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Because, Rule 27(2) of the said Rules casts a mandatory duty upon the Appellate Authority to consider whether the procedure laid down under the Rules was duly complied with; whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were supported by evidence on record; and whether the penalty imposed was proportionate or excessive. However, the impugned appellate order does not reflect any such consideration. It neither examines procedural compliance nor evaluates the evidence or proportionality of penalty. The impugned order is, therefore, non- speaking, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory mandate. The respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to withhold or adjust the lawful dues of petitioner, including unpaid salary from September 2016 to January 2017, arrears of the Sixth Pay Commission for the period 18.02.2016 to 31.08.2016, Family Welfare Fund, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, General Provident Fund, and Family Pension. Such withholding and adjustment of retiral benefits is contrary to law, particularly when the departmental proceedings themselves stand vitiated and the husband of petitioner had already attained superannuation prior to the passing of the impugned orders. It is a settled proposition of law that retiral benefits are a vested right of an employee accrued upon superannuation, and cannot be withheld except in accordance with law and upon establishment of proven misconduct through a lawful proceeding. In the present case, since the departmental enquiry was held in gross violation of due process, the respondents’ action of adjusting the retiral dues against the alleged recovery amount is wholly without jurisdiction and ultra vires. The cumulative effect of all the above irregularities, including non-supply of documents, ex parte conduct of enquiry, non-issuance of a fresh charge-sheet, mechanical dismissal of appeal, and illegal recovery from retiral dues, establishes beyond doubt that the impugned orders are arbitrary, perverse, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned orders dated 05.10.2020 and 28.02.2023 deserve to be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 5. Hence, the impugned orders dated 05.10.2020 and 28.02.2023 deserve to be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the present writ petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of merit, substance, and maintainability, and therefore deserves to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner has failed to establish the existence of any enforceable legal right or demonstrate any violation of statutory duty on the part of the respondents which could warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petition essentially seeks to re-agitate issues already adjudicated and concluded through a proper departmental enquiry and subsequent appellate proceedings conducted strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 1966”). The writ petition attempts to reopen concluded disciplinary findings under the guise of challenging recovery proceedings, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner, Late Shri B.R. Kurre, was serving as Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Pendra, District Bilaspur (now District Gourella–Pendra–Marwahi). During the course of his service, serious allegations of misconduct and embezzlement of Government funds were levelled against him. Consequently, a regular departmental enquiry was instituted under the provisions of the CCA Rules, 1966. Additional Director, Agriculture, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, and Joint Director, Agriculture, Division Bilaspur, was appointed as the Presenting Officer to conduct and present the case on behalf of the department. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted a full- fledged enquiry, affording adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee to participate, represent his defence, and submit his explanation. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority, wherein all the charges levelled against the husband of petitioner were found proved on the basis of evidence and material on record. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were reasoned, supported by documents, and consistent with the evidence produced during the enquiry. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, after due consideration of the enquiry report and the materials on record, passed a reasoned order dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure P/2), holding the husband of petitioner guilty of embezzlement of Government funds and ordering recovery of the misappropriated amount. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, after due consideration of the enquiry report and the materials on record, passed a reasoned order dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure P/2), holding the husband of petitioner guilty of embezzlement of Government funds and ordering recovery of the misappropriated amount. The said order was passed strictly in accordance with Rule 10 and Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1966, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer. Being aggrieved, the husband of petitioner availed his statutory remedy and preferred a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority/State Government as provided under Rule 27 of the CCA Rules, 1966. The Appellate Authority, after examining the records of the case, including the enquiry report and the order of punishment, found no infirmity or irregularity in the procedure adopted or the findings recorded. Consequently, vide order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P/2), the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Disciplinary Authority was affirmed. Both the orders are speaking, reasoned, and well- founded orders passed after due application of mind. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the husband of petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017 while serving under the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur. The enquiry proceedings were continued thereafter in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which specifically empowers the continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after retirement of a Government servant. Subsequently, the husband of petitioner expired on 24.12.2021, and thereafter, the petitioner, being his legal representative, has been receiving interim pension regularly as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is also submitted that prior to the present petition, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 1078/2023, primarily seeking disbursal of retiral dues of her late husband. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2023, directing respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. In compliance with the said order of this Court, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur (respondent No. 4) duly considered the representation and passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby it was ordered that a total recovery of Rs. 57,44,709/- be effected from the delinquent employee (now deceased). Out of this amount, Rs. In compliance with the said order of this Court, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur (respondent No. 4) duly considered the representation and passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby it was ordered that a total recovery of Rs. 57,44,709/- be effected from the delinquent employee (now deceased). Out of this amount, Rs. 28,30,134/-, representing retiral dues payable to the husband of petitioner, was adjusted, and for the remaining balance of Rs. 29,14,575/-, Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) proceedings were directed to be initiated as per land recovery procedure. The said order was passed in compliance with the direction of Court and in accordance with law. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been regularly paid anticipatory/interim pension as admissible under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. From a bare perusal of the present writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has not raised any specific legal ground to challenge the validity of the orders passed by either the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. The petition merely seeks to reopen the findings of fact recorded during the enquiry and appellate stages, which is impermissible under the limited scope of judicial review available under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled position of law that the Writ Court does not act as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings and cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its findings for that of the disciplinary authorities. It is submitted that the scope of judicial review in matters of departmental enquiry is confined to examining whether the principles of natural justice have been observed, the procedure prescribed under the rules has been followed, and the findings are based on some evidence on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 , and recently in SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064 , has reiterated that courts cannot interfere with departmental findings unless the decision is perverse or in violation of statutory procedure. In the present case, no such procedural irregularity or violation has been demonstrated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the enquiry in question was conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966. In the present case, no such procedural irregularity or violation has been demonstrated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the enquiry in question was conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer followed due process, examined witnesses, and considered documentary evidence before concluding that the charges of embezzlement of government funds stood proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a reasoned punishment order, giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee. The Appellate Authority, upon due scrutiny, found no error or perversity in the findings and upheld the order. Hence, the plea of violation of natural justice raised by the petitioner is factually incorrect and legally untenable. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding non-supply of documents, ex parte proceedings, and non- application of mind have no factual basis. The records clearly indicate that the husband of petitioner participated in the proceedings, was issued notices, and was granted sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The orders passed by both authorities are well reasoned orders that reflect full compliance with procedural fairness and statutory requirements. He further relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another v. G. Ganayutham (Dead) through Lrs, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3387 , wherein it has been held that the Wednesbury test is to be applied while examining the validity of administrative or disciplinary decisions. The interference of this Court is limited to assessing whether the decision was illegal, procedurally improper, or so irrational that no reasonable person could have arrived at it. The Court does not substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority. The present case does not satisfy any of these tests. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri , reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 wherein it was held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate evidence or substitute findings recorded in departmental enquiry. The judicial review is directed only at the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Since no procedural illegality or violation of natural justice is made out, the disciplinary and appellate orders warrant no interference. The judicial review is directed only at the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Since no procedural illegality or violation of natural justice is made out, the disciplinary and appellate orders warrant no interference. It is therefore submitted that the enquiry proceedings against the husband of petitioner were conducted lawfully, the findings were based on evidence, and both the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have passed reasoned and well-considered orders. The recovery ordered is in accordance with law, proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and consistent with the rules governing service conditions. In light of the foregoing, the learned State counsel submit that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of substance. The petitioner has failed to make out any case of illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity warranting interference in the impugned orders. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition in limine, as being devoid of merit, misconceived in law, and not maintainable. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy essentially revolves around the legality, propriety, and validity of the appellate order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the husband of the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 05.10.2020 came to be dismissed. The petitioner has further assailed the consequential order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 4, whereby recovery to the tune of Rs. 57,44,709/- has been ordered against her, partly by adjustment of the retiral dues of her late husband and partly by initiating recovery proceedings against her. 9. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner, Late Shri B.R. Kurre, was initially appointed as a Village Level Worker and, after serving for more than four decades, retired as Senior Agriculture Development Officer. During his service, he was subjected to departmental proceedings on allegations of financial irregularities pertaining to the financial year 2011–2012. The said proceedings culminated in an ex parte enquiry and a final order of punishment dated 05.10.2020, directing recovery of the alleged embezzled amount. During his service, he was subjected to departmental proceedings on allegations of financial irregularities pertaining to the financial year 2011–2012. The said proceedings culminated in an ex parte enquiry and a final order of punishment dated 05.10.2020, directing recovery of the alleged embezzled amount. Against the said order, the husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 24.10.2020, raising several grounds including denial of opportunity of hearing, non-supply of documents, and the fact that he had already been acquitted in the criminal case based on the same set of allegations by the learned Sessions Court vide judgment dated 10.06.2021. 10.From the record, it is evident that the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the said appeal vide order dated 16.12.2021, has neither discussed nor dealt with any of the specific grounds so raised in the memorandum of appeal. The order, in substance, merely reiterates the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority without independent evaluation of the record, without considering the acquittal judgment rendered by the competent Criminal Court, and without recording any reasons as to why the appeal did not merit acceptance. The said order, therefore, ex facie suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. 11.The law is well settled that an appellate order must be a speaking and reasoned one. The Appellate Authority, while exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, is statutorily required to examine whether the prescribed procedure has been duly followed; whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are supported by evidence on record; and whether the penalty imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Each of these aspects has to be considered objectively and discussed in the appellate order. In the absence of such consideration, the order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is trite law that a quasi-judicial authority must pass a reasoned order reflecting conscious application of mind to the issues raised. The requirement of assigning reasons is not an empty formality but an integral part of the principles of natural justice. A reasoned order ensures transparency, accountability, and fairness in administrative action and facilitates judicial review, if challenged. It is trite law that a quasi-judicial authority must pass a reasoned order reflecting conscious application of mind to the issues raised. The requirement of assigning reasons is not an empty formality but an integral part of the principles of natural justice. A reasoned order ensures transparency, accountability, and fairness in administrative action and facilitates judicial review, if challenged. 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 , has held that “recording of reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion,” and absence thereof renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable. It was held as under : “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision- making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision- making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. 13.In the instant case, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has failed to discharge its statutory and quasi-judicial duty. The appellate order does not reveal any consideration of the grounds raised in appeal, nor does it indicate any independent application of mind to the facts, evidence, or procedural aspects. The order merely affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in a cursory and mechanical manner. Such an order, lacking in reasons, cannot be upheld, particularly when the appeal was based on serious allegations of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice in the enquiry process. The order merely affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in a cursory and mechanical manner. Such an order, lacking in reasons, cannot be upheld, particularly when the appeal was based on serious allegations of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice in the enquiry process. 14.This Court also takes note of the fact that the criminal proceedings initiated against the husband of the petitioner on the same set of allegations culminated in his acquittal by the learned Sessions Court vide judgment dated 10.06.2021, which attained finality. Although the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is distinct from that in criminal trials, yet, where the foundation of both proceedings is common and the employee stands exonerated in the criminal case on merits, the appellate authority was expected to examine the effect of such acquittal before affirming the finding of guilt in departmental proceedings. The complete omission to even advert to this material fact reinforces the inference of non-application of mind. The contention of the petitioner that her late husband was denied access to documents necessary for his defence, and that the enquiry was conducted ex parte, also required due scrutiny by the Appellate Authority. However, no such analysis or discussion is discernible from the order dated 16.12.2021. The order is thus unsustainable on this ground as well, as it reflects failure to consider the procedural irregularities and violations of the principles of natural justice alleged by the delinquent officer. It is equally well established that when the first appellate forum fails to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and does not decide the appeal in the manner prescribed by law, this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can set aside such an order and remit the matter for fresh consideration. The scope of interference by this Court in disciplinary matters is indeed limited to ensuring fairness in the decision-making process and adherence to statutory provisions. Since the present case reveals non-compliance with Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, and violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds justifiable reason to interfere with the appellate order. 15. The scope of interference by this Court in disciplinary matters is indeed limited to ensuring fairness in the decision-making process and adherence to statutory provisions. Since the present case reveals non-compliance with Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, and violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds justifiable reason to interfere with the appellate order. 15. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular, the manner in which the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2021, this Court is of the considered view that the said order is not a speaking or reasoned order. It fails to assign reasons addressing the specific grounds raised by the appellant and does not disclose due application of mind. Consequently, the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. 16.Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority concerned to reconsider the appeal of the late husband of petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is now representing the estate of the deceased employee. The Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with each of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and take into account all relevant materials, including the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, and all questions in that regard are left open for consideration by the Appellate Authority. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.