(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:
(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 :
(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.