IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15991 of 2006 RAMESHWAR RAI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 02 15/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was issued a memo. of charge. The allegations pertained to the alleged forgery of signature of the Chief Minister of the State in context of transfer orders of the petitioner. A criminal case was also lodged. The charges were the same. The departmental proceedings led to a finding of guilt leading to his dismissal. The criminal trial acquitted him. The petitioner preferred an appeal against dismissal which came to be rejected, prior to the order of acquittal by the criminal court. This Court has gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer, the judgment of the criminal court and the memo. of appeal. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the acquittal by the criminal court was not on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 2006 (5) SCC 446 (G.M.TANK VERUS STATE OF GUJRAT AND OTHERS) in support 2 of his submissions. This Court is satisfied that in the nature of the controversy, the findings of the disciplinary authority and of the criminal court, the appellate order is required to be reasoned and speaking on all aspects of the matter. In order to prevent prejudice to either side, this Court refrains from making any further observation on the respective contentions of the parties. The acquittal by the Criminal Court is a subsequent development after rejection of the Appeal and is the ground urged for relief against the appellate order. The respondent authorities have not had the occasion to consider that aspect. The law stands well settled that an appellate order is required to be reasoned and speaking, even if it is one of affirmance. The appellate order is required to be briefly indicate the nature of controversy involved, the grounds taken in the appeal, the materials available on the record to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction, even by a brief reasoning that the appellate authority had applied its mind displaying transparency in the decision making process. The appellate order dated 20.10.2006 is non-speaking in nature and had no occasion to consider subsequent 3 developments. It is, therefore, not sustainable. The appellate order dated 20.10.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order/additional memo. of appeal. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to further supplement the appeal preferred by him, if so advised. The application stands allowed to the extent indicated. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)