S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal challenges the order dated 19.07.2000 passed by learned Single Judge by means of which the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service dated 13.10.1984 has been dismissed. The appellant was appointed as a Driver in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Lucknow sometimes in the year 1976. He was placed at the disposal of Estate Department of U.P. Government by way of exchange for the services of the Estate Department's driver Mohd. Aziz, who the leader of opposition wanted to employ as his driver. The appellant was later on repatriated in his parent department in July 1982. The appellant since failed to follow the order passed by the competent authority for receiving the Chairman of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Committee at the railway station on 11.04.1984, therefore, he was served with a charge sheet. In the charge sheet two charges were levelled namely (i) that on 11th April 1984 he was required to go to Charbagh railway station and receive the Chairman but he did not reach the station and therefore, he violated the orders issued and (ii) he had, in his letter dated 11th October 1984 stated that when he reached the Charbagh railway station then he found that the Chairman was leaving on Rickshaw and even after seeing him on Rickshaw, he did not offer the car, which caused lot of inconvenience to the Chairman. Initially an enquiry was conducted but since the Enquiry Officer did not examine any witness, nor held any oral enquiry, therefore, the Secretary Legislative Assembly held the enquiry afresh. THIS time witnesses were examined and due opportunity was afforded to the appellant to participate in the enquiry. The Secretary Legislative Assembly who held the enquiry did not feel convinced with the explanation given by the appellant for his absence or his delay in reaching the Charbagh railway station and then not offering the Chairman the car though he saw that he was moving on a Rickshaw, therefore, inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service finding both the charges very serious and flagrant and deliberate violation of the orders issued by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after holding that there was no illegality in the proceeding and that due opportunity was afforded in the disciplinary enquiry and the dismissal order does not require any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava has drawn the attention of the Court to the dismissal order dated 18.10.1984, the English translation of which would be as under:- "Sri Mohd. Aftab Khan, permanent car driver, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, is dismissed from service w.e.f after-noon of 18th October 1984". The dismissal order normally requires reasons to be recorded. In case where departmental enquiry is conducted and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are accepted by the Disciplinary Authority also, it may not be necessary in such a case to give detail reasons for awarding the punishment of dismissal from service but in such a case also there has to be some inkling in the order of dismissal which shows that the appointing/Disciplinary Authority has applied his own mind on the facts and circumstances of the case or in the alternative, the dismissal order need be accompanied by a copy of the enquiry report. The plea of the State counsel that since in the instant case the appointing authority has himself conducted the enquiry and he being satisfied that two charges levelled against the appellant stands proved from the evidence on record and they were serious enough to award major punishment, suffice would be to mention that mere non-mentioning the reasons separately in the dismissal order would not vitiate the order, requires to be seen in the light that in a case where dismissal order is passed on the basis of enquiry report even after confirming the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the order of dismissal from service has to contain the reasons indicating the charges proved and such other material which is necessary for the purpose and in case such reasons are not given, the dismissal order must be accompanied by the enquiry report. The reference can be made to the case of B.P. Chaurasia vs State of U.P. reported in 1983 LCD (1) page 169. Even otherwise the order of dismissal from service, being a major punishment, which deprives the Govt. servant/public servant of the benefits of service to which he would have been entitled, had he remained in service till the crossing of the age of superannuation and therefore, the said order is not supposed to be passed in a casual manner. Apart from this, the order of dismissal from service is open to challenge both in the departmental appeal or before the court of law and unless the reasons either recorded in the dismissal order or the enquiry report, on the basis of which this order is passed, is not supplied, it will be difficult for such a person to challenge the said order in the appropriate forum, though he has statutory right to challenge the same in appeal as well as in the court of law. THIS will be denying the delinquent his statutory right of appeal and challenging the order in the Court. The dismissal order in the instant case, does not give any reason nor the enquiry report was communicated to the appellant alongwith the dismissal order. On the merits of the claim of the appellant it yet remains to be explained by the Secretary Legislative Assembly, who was the appointing authority and competent to take action, as to why this enquiry report in which he has recommended or suggested for dismissing the appellant from service was placed before the Vice Chairman of the Legislative Assembly. The enquiry report in the last says that he was of the opinion that since the appellant was a driver in the Secretariat and his services are being terminated, therefore, the matter be looked into by the Vice Chairman. THIS enquiry report/suggestion is of 12.10.1984 and thereafter there is an endorsement of 16.10.1984 which says that Hon'ble Vice Chairman has seen the file. True, that the appellant was an employee in the Secretariat but the appointing/disciplinary authority was to apply his own mind in passing the order of punishment. He was not to take sanction nor was to seek appreciation from the Vice Chairman, Legislative Assembly for taking disciplinary action against erring or defaulting employee. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently urged that the conduct of the appellant throughout was unsatisfactory and for that matter paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition has been read over again and again. In Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit certain indiscipline or so to say misconduct of the appellant has been mentioned as on two or three occasions which according to the appellant counsel, spreads over a period of only three days for which no warning was issued to the appellant but even if it is assumed that the warning as mentioned in the said paragraph of counter affidavit was actually issued, but the appellant did not mend himself, even thereafter, still the order of dismissal from service would become bad, for the reason that if the past conduct of the delinquent was to be taken into account for considering the quantum of punishment to be awarded, it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to make it known to the delinquent and give an opportunity, while imposing the gravest punishment of dismissal from service. The aforesaid plea is also not tenable for the reason that neither in the enquiry report which is termed as order, separately passed by the appointing authority there is no mention of those warnings of the alleged misconduct of the appellant nor the dismissal order says that the said fact was considered while determining the quantum of punishment. That being so the pleas raised in the counter affidavit are not of any assistance in defending the order of dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that in a charge like the present one in which only delay in reaching the destination i.e. Charbagh railway station was under consideration, for which the appellant had given a reasonable explanation, which even though might not have been accepted by the disciplinary authority but it was not such a serious charge so as to dismiss him from service . In this regard, suffice would be to mention that a driver is supposed to perform the duty as and when directed. It cannot be lost sight of, that by not reaching the railway station in time, not only inconvenience was caused to the Vice Chairman but it was also an indiscipline on the part of the driver. In view of discussion made above that the appointing authority did not pass any reasoned order and the averments made in the counter affidavit having not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, while passing the order of dismissal, the same cannot be looked into for defending the order of punishment. After having said so, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the appellant, the appellant having crossed the age of superannuation on 30th June 2008. Considering the fact that the appellant did not work for the entire period from the date of dismissal and that he cannot be left scot-free for the misconduct that he committed, may be under the circumstances as he has stated before the Enquiry Officer, we direct that he would be entitled to back wages/arrears of salary only to the extent of 20% for the entire period when he remained out of employment, giving him the benefits of revision of pay scales, if any, had taken place during this period, and thus, his pension and pensionary benefits will also be calculated by fixing his pay, in the pay scale to which he would have been entitled, had he remained in service on the date of superannuation, as per rules. The period during which he remained out of service, shall be treated as continued service for the purpose of calculation of pensionery benefits. No other consequential benefit shall be provided to the appellant. Since the appellant has retired from service, the amount which became payable to him, shall be paid within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The special appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.;