IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13437 of 2002 SWADESH NANDAN PRASAD Versus PATLIPUTRA GRAMIN BANK & ORS ----------- 5/ 27/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. The petitioner, who is an officer of the respondent Bank, was subjected to departmental proceedings in connection with discharge of his duties on two charges. An enquiry report came to be submitted when on both charges the enquiry officer found the charges partially proved to the extent that while he held that the petitioner was not fully vigilant, he returned a finding of exoneration insofar as the allegations of connivance was concerned. A second show-cause notice of the proposed punishment was issued to which he replied whereafter the final order of punishment dated 27.12.2001 forfeiting two annual graded increments already earned with cumulative effect, reducing his salary, was passed. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. The memorandum of appeal is appended at annexure-5. The petitioner, inter alia, sought to raise issues of alleged procedural infirmity in the departmental proceeding. The 2 appellate order came to be passed on 6.3.2002 rejecting his appeal. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the appellate order is non-speaking and does not display application of mind to the grounds taken in the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, from the appellate order, submitted that the recitals in the order clearly indicated a proper consideration of the entire records. There is a presumption of independent application of mind by the appellate authority and, therefore, the appellate order requires no interference. The law stands well settled that even an order of affirmation by the appellate authority is required to be reasoned. The appellate order must briefly indicate what the charges were, what the findings on the charges were and then deal with the objections of the delinquent in appeal to record the independent findings of the appellate authority on these objections. This has been considered necessary by the courts, as the need to give reasons controls arbitrariness. Without reasons an appellate authority, ipse dixit, may be inclined to reject an appeal rendering the same meaningless. Any order which is subject to judicial review by a higher body or court, is required to contain reasons which also facilitate judicial 3 review to enable the next authority or court to decide whether interference is warranted or not. In view of the law being settled on the role of the appellate authority, the impugned order dated 6.3.2002 is not sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)