IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6018 of 2009 Mritunjay Prasad . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 28/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2008 visiting him with punishment in a departmental proceeding of warning and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension. His appeal against the same has been rejected on 4.3.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that his grievance that the order of transfer, which was the foundation of the departmental proceeding, was in fact never served upon him, is a matter which perhaps can more appropriately be considered by the appellate authority himself from the original records. Insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, suffice it to observe that an appellate order is also required to be reasoned. It need not be very elaborate if it is an order of affirmance, but at least it must demonstrate the application of mind to the materials, the allegations, the defense that may have been taken in the departmental proceedings, the 2 grounds urged in the Memo. of Appeal, the findings in the departmental proceeding and by a brief discussion arrive at a fresh conclusion. The Court is not persuaded to uphold the order in the present form. The appellate order dated 4.3.2009 is set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority to be consider afresh in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)