Srivastava, J.- Petitioner, Shri Madan Chandra Talukdar, was A.G./2 (Accounts') in the Food Corporation of India, hereinafter referred as the 'Corporation'. While working in the District Office of the Corporation at Nowgong, Assam, on 14.3.77 he was served with a memorandum initiating discipli­nary proceeding under Regulation 58 of the Corporation's Staff Regulation, 1971 on charge of lack of integrity and devotion to duty. He submitted written statement in defence on 6.4.77. By order dated 24.11.79 the charge was withdrawn but soon after by memorandum dated 26.11.79 a fresh charge was served on the petitioner, alleging that during the year 1973, while functioning as Cashier at the aforesaid office of the Corpo­ration he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and to serve the corporation faithfully in that in col­lusion with Shri J. Chetia, Assistant Manager (Accounts), he had produced five false kuchha receipts and subsequently col­luded with others in an attempt to make it appear that an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- has been disbursed by Shri Chetia. He submitted written statement in defence categorically denying the charge and pleaded innocence. A common enquiry against him and others was held. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge but recommended lenient action in view of his inexperience etc. The Zonal Manager of the Corpora­tion, respondent No. 3, by order dated 4.6.81 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. His appeal was rejected by the Managing Director of the 'Corporation', respondent No. 2, by Order dated 17th April, 1982. The petitioner therefore filed this petition, challenging the aforesaid orders of compul­sory retirement, and of rejection of appeal. The respondents, the 'Corporation', its Managing Director and Zonal Manager, in the affidavit in opposition have resisted the petition stating that the enquiry on proper charge was rightly conducted and the petitioner had all the opportunity to defend himself. The order of compulsory retirement was justified. The appeal was considered and properly rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, before us, only assailed the order in appeal dated 17th April, 1982 with Annexure-IX. He has submitted that staid Regulation, 72 of the Corporation, which is the law O.1 the sabjeet, provides for appeal and lays down how and what the appellate authority has to consider. The appeal was considered and properly rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, before us, only assailed the order in appeal dated 17th April, 1982 with Annexure-IX. He has submitted that staid Regulation, 72 of the Corporation, which is the law O.1 the sabjeet, provides for appeal and lays down how and what the appellate authority has to consider. He has submitted that the order in appeal, in the instant case, did not reflect or show that the appellate autho­rity had considered the matter of quantum of punishment, which it was bound to consider, in accordance with specific provision of Regulation 72(2)(c) of the Staff Relation, 1971, and there­fore the order in appeal was illegal and cannot be sustained. It may be stated here that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not except as noted above challenged any other aspect of the enquiry proceedings. Shri A.K. Phukan, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellate order was justified, a lenient view having already been taken by the disciplinary authority as recommended by the Enquiry Officer, taking the inexperience of the petitioner into consideration. We have considered the respective submissions on behalf of the parties. Regulation 72 of the Staff Regulation of the Corporation reads as under :- "72 Consideration of appeal : (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of sus­pension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Regulation 66 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order impo­sing any of the penalties specified in regulation 54 or enhancing an penalty imposed under the said regulation the appellate authority shall consider- (a) Where the procedure laid down in these regula­tions has been compiled with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violations or in the failure of justice : (b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders-" The provisions of Regulation 72 (2) it may be noted, are substantially the same as Rule 27 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. In R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India & ors. In R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India & ors. A.I.R 1986 SC 1040 the Supreme Court observed :- "Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that in disposing of the appeal, the Director General has not applied his mind to the requirement of R. 27 (2) of the Rules, the relevant provisions of which read as follows:- "27 (2). In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said Rules, the appellate authority shall consider : (a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provi­sions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authori­ty are warranted by the evidence of the record; and (c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders- (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case". The word 'consider' in R. 27(2) implies due applicant of mind. It is clear upon the terms of R. 27(2) that the appellate authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been comp­lied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitu­tion or in failure of justice; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record and, (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty or may remit back the case to the autho­rity which imposed the same. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in Cls. (a), (b) and (c) thereof." The Supreme Court further held : "There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director-General was satisfied as to whether the pro­cedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with and if not whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure in justice. We regret to find that the Director-General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that cl. (c) of R. 27(2) Viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of R. 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director-General is liable to be set aside." In the present case in the impugned order in appeal, it was stated : "Now therefore, the appellate authority, after applying the mind, has come to the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merits and that no case is made out warranting any interference with the orders of the Zonal Mana­ger (East), Food Corporation of India Calcutta imposing OP Shri Talukdar the penalty of compulsory retirement. Accordingly, the said appeal of Shri M. C. Talukdar has been rejected." We have given our anxious consideration to the impugned appellate order. We are unable to accept that it discloses due application of mind to the consideration that whether the penalty imposed was adequate. It is true that an elaborate order is not expected, yet there should be something in the order to indicate that the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment im­posed had been duly considered by the appellate authority. We are therefore, unable to sustain the impugned appellate order, but think that the appellate authority should reconsider the matter and make appropriate necessary order. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed to the ex­tent that the impugned appellate order dated 17th April, 1982 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law in terms of Regula­tion 72(2) of the Staff Regulation. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.