Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for an order dated 27-7-1985 passed by the respondent no.3 and as contained in annexure-5 to the writ application as also the order dated 24-2-1986 passed by respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. At all material times, the petitioner was serving the Railway Protection Force as a Rakshak. In the night of 9th/10th April, 1984, the petitioner was on duty. At about 2.15 a. M. on 10-4-1984, a theft of iron rods from a railway wagon occured. In relation to the aforementioned incidents, the petitioner was charge-sheeted by a memo dated 8-5-1984, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. On the basis of the aforementioned charges a disciplinary proceeding was initiated as against the petitioner. By reason of a report dated 18th december, 1984 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, the petitioner was found not guilty. 3. The Disciplinary authority, however, differed with the said report and by reason of a notice dated 7th May, 1985 directed the petitioner to show cause as to Why he should not be removed from service. Pursuant to the aforementioned show cause, the petitioner filed his second show cause, which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 4. The Disciplinary authority upon perusal of the aforementioned show cause and other relevant records, by an order dated 27th June.1985 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application directed that the petitioner be removed from services. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order dated 27-6-1985 (Annexure-5) preferred an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority, in terms of Rule 52 of the Railway Protection Force, 1959 as also under Regulation 36 of the Railway Protection Force Regulation 1966. The memo of appeal submitted by the petitioner before the appellate authority is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. 6. The memo of appeal submitted by the petitioner before the appellate authority is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. 6. From a perusal of the memorandum of appeal, it appears that the petitioner inter alia took the plea that one Sri P. C. Jha who at the material time was with him and against whom also there were similar allegations of misconduct, was given a lesser punishment then imposed upon the petitioner i. e. whereas Sri P. C. Jha was imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments and the petitioner was directed to be removed from services. 7. By reason of an order dated 24th February, 1986 which was communicated to the petitioner by a memo dated 5-3-1986 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal. 8. Mr. S. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two fold contention in support of the writ application. Firstly, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was found not guilty of the charges by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority could not have differred with the said iindings of the inquiry officer. 9. The learned counsel next contended that in any event, the order of appellate authority is not a speaking order nor does it indicate that he applied his mind with regard to the discrimination meted out to the petitioner in the matter of quantum of punishment imposed upon him vis-a-vis the aforementioned Sri P. C. Jha. 10. Mr. P. K. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a disciplinary authority is not bound by the findings of the inquiry officer and he has jurisdiction to come to an independent rinding upon perusil of the records and upon analysis of the evidence on records of the case. 11. According to Mr. Sinha from a perusal of the order dated 7-5-1985 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, it would appear that the disciplinary authority had assigned sufficient and cogent reasons for differing with the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. 12. According to Mr. Sinha, therefore, there is no informity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure -7 to the writ application. 12. According to Mr. Sinha, therefore, there is no informity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure -7 to the writ application. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority, while agreeing with the order passed by the disciplinary authority need not assign detailed reasons, and in this view of the matter no interference is called for with the appellate order as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. Re-contention No.1 it is now well settled that a disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction to differ with the findings of the inquiry officer, and the disciplinary authority may upon examination of the evidences on record come to his independent finding that despite finding of not guilty arrived at by the inquiry officer, the dcliquent officer is guilty of the charges levelled as against him. 13. However, while doing so, he is required to assign reasons in support of his own findings. 14. In the instant case, from a perusal of the order of disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, it appears that he took into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner and evidence adduced against him on behalf of the department and on the basis thereof he came to the conclusion that there are enough materials on the record for him to differ with the findings of the inquiry officer.14. In this view of the matter the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must fail. Re-contention No.2 rules 58 (2) of the Railway Protection Force reads as follows :- "in the case of an appeal against on order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 41, the appellate authority shall consider. (a) Whether the procedure prescribed in rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in failure justice. (b) Whether the findings are justified, and (c) Whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate ; and pass orders ; (i) setting aside, reducing, confirming, or enhancing the penalty; (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such discretion as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. " 15. " 15. From a perusal of the aforementioned rules, it appears that in terms thereof, the appellate authority is inter alia required to apply his mind, while passing the order as to whether the procedure prescribed in the said rule had been complied with and whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. 16. In the instant case, as in dicate here-in-before, the petitioner specifically raised a contention that the sentence imposed upon him was excessive in view of the fact that Sri P. C. Jha, who was similarly situated has been retained in service and has been imposed only with a punishment of stoppage of two increments. 17. The appellate authority while passing the order as contained in An-nexure-7 to the writ application, after recital of the case, merely held as follows ;- "i have gone through the entire proceedings life and appeal petition. He has not adduced any fresh point worth consideration. He has been punished judiciously. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. Hence, the appeal is rejected. " 16. From a perusal of the aforementioned order dated 24-2-1986. It is evident that the same does not sub-serve the requirements of law as contained in rule 58 (2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 , as quoted here-in-before. 17. In terms of the aforementioned statutory rules, the appellate authority was required to consider the factors as enumerated therein. In the instant case, as noticed here-in-before, the petitioner raised a question of discrimination with regard to the quantum of punishment, the appellate authority, in such a situation was enjoined with a duty to consider such question in order to enable him to come to finding as to whether the punishment imposed upon him was excessive or not, particularly, keeping in view that a person similarly situated has been let off with a punishment of stoppage of two increments only. 18. In my view, even if no reason is required to be assigned by the appellate authority, while deciding an appeal preferred by the deliquent officer, from an order passed by the appellate authority, in view of the aforementioned statutory provisions, must ex-fade show that he has applied his mind to the relevant factors as enumerated in Rule 58 (2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 . 19. 19. Plainly enough, the order passed by the appellate authority does not fulfil the requirements of low inasmuch as therefrom it does not appear that he has applied his mind with regard to the question as to whether the punishment allowed to the petitioner was excessive or not. 20. In this view of the matter, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application can not be sustained. 20. In the result, this writ application is allowed in part and the order dated 24-2-1986 passed by the respondent no.2, which was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 5-3-1986 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application is quashed and case is remitted to the respondent no.2 for 8 fresh decision in accordance with law. In view of the fact the petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1985. the appellate authority shall consider the desirability of disposing of the said appeal with utmost expedition and preferrably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. 21. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application Allowed.