JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification bearing No. 119(S), dated 06.01.2011 [ANNEXURE-4], issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi through its Deputy Secretary, whereby petitioner has been awarded following punishments: (i) Stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect; (ii) No payment for suspension period except subsistence allowances during the period of suspension; (iii) No promotion on higher post for next five years, as contained in ANNEXURE -4 to the writ petition. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No. 2061 (S), dated 11.04.2019, issued by the Government and communicated through the Joint Secretary, Department of Road Construction whereby and whereunder the punishment order dated 06.01.2011, has been confirmed without mentioning any reason and which was passed only on the ground that in another departmental proceeding some punishment has been inflicted. So, the order of punishment dated 06.01.2011 is confirmed without any basis. 3. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer and he joined his post on 21.07.1981 under the respondents and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2002. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Road Division, Jamshedpur through a Notification dated 29.12.2006, where he took charge of his post on 30.12.2006. It is further case of the petitioner that while he was posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, he was served with a Notification bearing No. 21(S), dated 04.01.2009, whereby he was suspended with immediate effect. Thereafter, by a Resolution no. 1199(S)WE, dated 06.03.2009, issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, a decision was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner and consequently, the departmental proceeding was initiated. After conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide Notification issued under Memo No. 119(S), dated 06.01.2011, imposed punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect, no payment for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance and stoppage of promotion on the higher post for the next five years. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide Notification issued under Memo No. 119(S), dated 06.01.2011, imposed punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect, no payment for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance and stoppage of promotion on the higher post for the next five years. It is further case of the petitioner that in para-6 of the supplementary counter affidavit, names of the officers have been mentioned who were responsible for monitoring the construction of the said road, however, petitioner's name was not in that list. Against the order of punishment, petitioner filed an Appeal before the Governor of Jharkhand through proper channel vide his Memo of Appeal dated 21.12.2017. 4. After receiving Memo of Appeal, the Appellate Authority has not gone into the grounds of appeal nor considered any aspects under which the enquiry officer had dealt with the charges. There were several defects in the departmental enquiry, for example, neither any witnesses were examined; nor any documentary evidences were produced by the Presenting Officer. Ultimately, the appellate authority not at all considered all these grounds and confirmed the punishment order vide Memo No. 2061(S), dated 11.04.2019. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the aforesaid orders in the instant writ application. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel has made following submissions: i) The impugned order of punishment dated 06.01.2011 is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order, inasmuch as, none of the grounds which has been taken by the petitioner in reply to the 2 nd show-cause has been taken into account. ii) Even the Appellate Authority did not pass a reasoned order, instead, the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration one another case in which punishment has been imposed. The same is beyond jurisdiction. iii) In the entire enquiry proceeding, none of the documents has been proved by oral evidence. 6. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued the case on merit that the petitioner was posted only for couple of months and the entire work was over much prior to his posting to the concerned place; as such, even otherwise, the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate order should be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued the case on merit that the petitioner was posted only for couple of months and the entire work was over much prior to his posting to the concerned place; as such, even otherwise, the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate order should be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State justifying the impugned orders submits that an inspection report of construction of work of Adityapur Kandra road was submitted by the Chief Engineer (Communication), Road Construction Department, Ranchi vide letter No. 1961 dated 18.11.2008, wherein it was reported that the road was damaged within a year of its construction. The department after reviewing the report, served a show-cause notice to the petitioner vide letter No. 7438 dated 25.11.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter No. 2277 dated 01.12.2008. Thereafter, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the Department after approval from the competent authority suspended the petitioner vide notification contained in memo No. 21 (S) dated 04.01.2009 and initiated a departmental proceeding vide resolution dated 06.03.2009 in which three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer reported that charge Nos. 1 and 2 are proved. After reviewing the enquiry report, the petitioner was served 2 nd show- cause notice vide letter dated 10.11.2019 and the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 23.11.2010. The disciplinary authority after reviewing the reply of 2 nd show-cause and after approval from the competent authority revoked the suspension of the petitioner and punishment was imposed upon the petitioner vide notification contained in memo No. 119(S) dated 06.01.2011. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2019 also confirmed the order of punishment. 8. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has been punished in another matter vide notification dated 27.03.2015 wherein following punishment have been imposed upon the petitioner: i) Reduction to the lowest scale of the pay. ii) Proportionate recovery of loss of government revenue which amounts to Rs.69,40,098.67. He further submits that the retiral benefits of the petitioner is being pending due to the aforesaid reason, for which a writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 5388 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner. 9. ii) Proportionate recovery of loss of government revenue which amounts to Rs.69,40,098.67. He further submits that the retiral benefits of the petitioner is being pending due to the aforesaid reason, for which a writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 5388 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order of punishment dated 06.01.2011, it is evident that the same is passed without considering any of the contention of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the concerned authority has only stated that a proceeding was initiated and thereafter, 2 nd show-cause was issued and after getting the reply, the same was not found satisfactory. However, why reply to the 2 nd show-cause was not found satisfactory, has not been mentioned even in a single sentence. In crux, the punishment has been awarded without giving any reason; as such, on this score alone the impugned order of punishment needs to be quashed and set aside. 10. After going through the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner and the appellate order, it appears that two reasons have been assigned in rejecting the appeal. Firstly, the petitioner has taken same grounds what he has taken in reply to the 2 nd show- cause and secondly, the petitioner has also been punished in a separate case, for which petitioner has also filed a writ petition. However, the appellate authority failed to deliberate with any of the contentions/ grounds raised in the memo of appeal. 11. After going through the appellate order, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the same is not a reasoned order and the reason of another case is inconsistent and unheard in the service jurisprudence for the sole reason that the appellate authority was supposed to pass the order after going through the grounds taken by the petitioner which is absent in the instant case. 12. From the entire counter-affidavit, it has not been stated that any oral evidence has been adduced in order to prove the documents, which is also against the settled principle of enquiry proceeding. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and discussion, the impugned orders dated 06.01.2011 and 11.04.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.