JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against the order of the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, U.P. dated 1-2-1971, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order of the State Government dated 11-5-1972 dismissing the petitioner's appeal. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Noter and Drafter in the Government Press, at Allahabad. Certain charges were framed against him for misconduct and negligence in the performance of his duties as a result of which the Government was put to financial loss. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges. The Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, Government Press, appointed Bhola Dutt Lohani, Personal Officer of the Government Press as enquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to appear before the said Enquiry officer, but the petitioner did not appear, instead he asserted that whatever he had to say had already been stated by him in his explanation. In the circumstances the enquiry was held in the petitioner's absence. The enquiry officer, however, examined one Joyal Singh and recorded his statement in the petitioners absence and thereafter he submitted his report to the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery that out of five charge, charge Nos. 4 and 5 were proved whereas the first three charges were not established. The Superintendent who was the punishing authority accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply and in that reply he raised various submissions including that the charges had not been proved and further that since he had been exonerated on charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3, he could not be found guilty of charge Nos. 4 and 5 which were consequently to charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3. He further raised a grievance that the statement of Mr. Joyal Singh was recorded behind his back and he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. The Superintendent did not find the petitioner's explanation satisfactory, he held that the petitioner was negligent in his duties and on that finding he passed the order dated 1-2-1971 dismissing the petitioner from service and directed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,895.98 from the petitioner as in his opinion the Government had been put to financial loss due to the petitioner's negligence. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government. 4,895.98 from the petitioner as in his opinion the Government had been put to financial loss due to the petitioner's negligence. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government. The State Government by its order dated 11-5-1972 dismissed the appeal but made a minor alteration in the punishment. It directed that the punishment of dismissal should be converted into removal. A copy of the order of the State Government could be served on the petitioner only on 9-2-1973. The petitioner thereupon made several applications to the State Government for giving a copy of the reasoned order dismissing his appeal, but he failed to obtain the same. Ultimately the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid order of the Superintendent and the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that it was none of the duty of the petitioner to check the challan or recoupment orders and therefore he had wrongly been held guilty of those charges. He has further urged that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of defence as the statement of Joyal Singh was recorded behind his back and he had been afforded no opportunity of cross-examination, and further the department had never informed the petitioner that Joyal Singh's statement would be recorded in support of the charges nor his name was mentioned as a witness for the department in the charge-sheet. If the petitioner had been given information about the recording of the statement of Joyal Singh, he would have appeared and cross-examined him. The order of dismissal which is founded on the testimony of Joyal Singh is thus vitiated. I am not expressing my opinion on these questions as in my opinion the writ petition can be disposed of on another ground. 4. The appeal against the order of dismissal was filed before the State Government under Rule 59 of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The appeal was directed against the order of dismissal. Rule 59 is in the following words :- "59. 4. The appeal against the order of dismissal was filed before the State Government under Rule 59 of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The appeal was directed against the order of dismissal. Rule 59 is in the following words :- "59. In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in Rule 49, the appellate authority shall consider- (a) Whether the acts on which the order was based have been established; (b) Whether the facts established afforded sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and after such consideration shall pass such order as it thinks proper." The above rule requires the appellate authority to apply its mind, to the charges, to the explanation furnished by the delinquent Government servant and the findings recorded by the punishing authority and thereafter it is required to record finding as to whether the charges on which the dismissal order was founded had been established and further whether the facts proved are sufficient to justify the penalty of dismissal and lastly the appellate authority is required to consider the question as to whether the penalty was commensurate with the gravity of the charges. The requirement of Rule 59 makes it clear that the appellate authority is under a duty to perform its function in a quasi-judicial manner. It is required to consider the appeal in an objective manner and to deal with the questions raised in the appeal and record reasons in support of its conclusions. 5. In M/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302 , the Supreme Court observed :- "It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him : It must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that and he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law.and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to make the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim." The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are applicable to the proceedings in appeal filed under Rule 59. The State Government had statutory duty to record reasons for dismissing the petitioners appeal and for converting the punishment of dismissal into removal. Admittedly the petitioner has raised a number of grounds in his appeal and he had challenged the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as well as by the punishing authority. In that situation it was obligatory on the State Government to have considered those questions objectively and recorded its reasons in rejecting the petitioner's appeal. 6. A perusal of the order of the 'State Government dated 11-5-1972, Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit of Sri Lohani filed on behalf of the Respondents shows that it does not contain any reasons. It merely states that on considering the petitioner's appeal, the State Government rejected it and altered the punishment of dismissal into removal. Annexure 4 is the communication of the order of the State Government, it does not contain any reasons. The petitioner made several applications for supply of a copy of the reasoned order if there was any- on the records of the State Government, but no such reasoned order was supplied to him. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it has been asserted that the question of supplying any copy did not arise because there was no other order except the order dated 11-5-1972 which had been communicated to the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery. The order dated 11-5-1972 relied upon by the State Government as the only order dismissing the petitioner's appeal is vitiated as it does not contain any reasons, instead it contains only conclusions. There is a vast difference between reasons and conclusions. A quasi-judicial authority is required to reach conclusions only through the process of reasoning and not through subjective satisfaction. The order dated 11-5-1972 relied upon by the State Government as the only order dismissing the petitioner's appeal is vitiated as it does not contain any reasons, instead it contains only conclusions. There is a vast difference between reasons and conclusions. A quasi-judicial authority is required to reach conclusions only through the process of reasoning and not through subjective satisfaction. Reasoned order is the essential element of a quasi-judicial order. A quasi judicial authority required to perform its function in a quasi-judicial manner is under duty to record reasons, in the absence of reasons the order would be vitiated in law. The impugned order of the State Government does not contain any reasons. 7. In the result I allow the petition and quash the order of the State Government dated 11-5-1972 and direct the State Government to consider the petitioner's appeal afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.