Short Note : 1. The petitioner was appointed Assistant Soil Conservation Officer some time in 1962. There was a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. By order dated 4th April 1967, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of reduction to the post of Agricultural Assistant (U.D.) in Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Service Class III. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Government on 26th August 1968. The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Held : The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is not in accordance with rule 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In our opinion, this contention must be accepted. Rule 27 of the rules requires that the appellate authority, while deciding an appeal, shall consider (a) whether the procedure laid down in the rules has been complied with, (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence and (c) whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe. The scheme of rule 27 clearly shows that the appellate authority has to pass a speaking order giving briefly the reasons why the points raised by the employee concerned are not acceptable and why the punishment imposed should be upheld. The legal position that the appellate authority must pass a speaking order is settled by a number of decisions of this Court. In the instant case the appeal was dismissed by a one line order without giving any reasons whatsoever. Petition allowed case, remanded.