JUDGMENT : B.S. Sinha, J. The prayer, in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is to quash Annexures 1 and 2 appended to it. Annexure 1 is an ORDER :dated 3.1.1978 passed by the competent authority inflicting certain punishment to the petitioner after a departmental proceeding. Annexure 2 is an ORDER :dated 13 November 1979 passed by the appellate authority in the departmental proceeding dismissing the 'petitioner's appeal. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that the petitioner was working as an Accountant in the office of the Agricultural Engineer, Patna when a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 12.6.75, in which a number of allegations were made. After the conclusion of the departmental proceeding and the receipt of the report, the petitioner was asked to show cause, which he did. On consideration of which the impugned ORDER :(Annexure 1) was passed, by which certain punishments were inflicted against the petitioner. They were :- (1) that for the period of suspension, the petitioner would be paid only his suspension allowance. (2) that the petitioner was censured, which would be entered in his character-roll, and (3) that the dues against the petitioner as house rent would be deducted from his salary in instalments. Aggrieved by this aforesaid punishment in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner under' the provision of the Rule 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules 1935 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by Annexure 2 dismissed his appeal. 3. The short point, raised in support of this application, is that Annexure 2 cannot be sustained as it is a non-speaking ORDER :. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which inter alia it is stated, the ORDER :passed in appeal does give a reason that since the petitioner had not adduced additional evidence the appeal was not fit to be allowed on evidence on the record. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to show any law providing for detailed reason. My attention has also been specifically drawn to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, in which it is stated as follows. "As regards the appeal it is submitted that he has lodged the appeal but did not choose to appear and prosecute the appeal before the appellate authority. My attention has also been specifically drawn to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, in which it is stated as follows. "As regards the appeal it is submitted that he has lodged the appeal but did not choose to appear and prosecute the appeal before the appellate authority. He can blame no body but himself." He in the above quotation refers to the petitioner. 5. Under Rule 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1935, a member of subordinate service is entitled to appeal to the authority immediately superior to the authority which passed an ORDER :imposing upon the person concerned any of the penalties specified in Rule 2. It is not in dispute that the penalties imposed upon the petitioner were Under Rule 2 and the appeal was filed in accordance with this rule before super or authority in this Case probably the State Government. Rule 6 thereafter reads as follows. "In the case of an appeal against an ORDER :imposing any penalty specified in rule 2 the appellate authority shall consider- (a) Whether the facts on which the ORDER :was passed 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 :s as it thinks proper. By going through this rule, it is obvious that the appellate authority has to apply its mind on the following facts- (i) whether the facts on which the ORDER :has been passed, have been proved, and (ii) that the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action and that the penalty is either excessive, adequate or inadequate. Therefore the appellate authority had to consider the appeal of the petitioner from these three aspects and record reasons. It cannot be disputed that the impugned ORDER :which in Annexure 2 is a quasi judicial ORDER :and now it is settled law that such ORDER :must be speaking ORDER :and the appellate authority must furnish his own reason for coming to the conclusion that he has come to. In the instant case, all that has been stated by the appellate authority is that on consideration it has been found that the petitioner had not raised any point which needed reconsideration. This is hardly providing any reason for the ORDER :. 5. In the instant case, all that has been stated by the appellate authority is that on consideration it has been found that the petitioner had not raised any point which needed reconsideration. This is hardly providing any reason for the ORDER :. 5. The plea in the counter affidavit that the reasons were not given as additional evidence had not been adduced by the petitioner cannot be sustained. I am not aware nor has any attempt been made to refer to any law which lays down that the appellate authority must give reason only when some additional evidence is adduced before the appellate authority. 7. The next contention, that the petitioner had to blame himself because he did not choose to appear and prosecute the appeal before the appellate authority, has to be stated to be rejected. Again there is no provision of law under which it was incumbent upon the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority. However, if the appellate authority wanted more clarification from the petitioner, the appellate authority should have easily noticed the petitioner to appear and make those clarification. Even if, the petitioner had not appeared, and had merely filed his appeal, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to decide his appeal, in accordance with law. If this Counter affidavit suggests that the respondent appellate authority will only consider the appeal if the appellant concerned choose to appear then such authority has misunderstood the law once the appeal has been filed it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of that appeal in accordance with law I have therefore, for the reasons given above, no option but to hold that Annexure 2 is not in accordance with law and must therefore be set aside. The appellate authority will now proceed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. As the appeal filed long time back it is directed that the appeal of the petitioner shall be disposed of within three months from to jay by the competent appellate authority. 8 In the result this application is allowed and Annexure 2 is set aside with the directions given above, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no ORDER :as to costs.