THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26122 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working in Deccan Grameena Bank, respondent No.1 herein. By 2009, he was in Middle Management Grade Scale II. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 10.09.2009, imposing the punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade Scale I. Feeling aggrieved by the order of reversion, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3. The appeal was rejected through order, dated 29.07.2010. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that the appellate authority did not furnish any reasons while rejecting the appeal. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others[1]. After referring to the relevant facts up to the stage of filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal through the following observations: “The Board has not felt the need for considering the request of the official for a personal hearing as the Board has access to all the materials for disposing of the appeal. As the official has not brought out any extenuating factors in his appeal for necessitating reconsideration for the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, we confirm the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and dismiss the appeal. Till recently, the view expressed by various Courts is that an Appellate Authority is not under obligation to furnish any independent reasons in case it affirms the order under appeal. Recently, the Supreme Court, in the judgment referred to supra, held that an Appellate Authority is under obligation to furnish reasons in support of its conclusions. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover case ((1995) 6 SCC 279) has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.” Following the same, the writ petition is allowed on the short ground that the order of appellate authority is bereft of any reasons. The order, dated 29.07.2010, passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration and disposal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.10.2010 kdl [1] (2009) 4 SCC 240