Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been heard at length at the admission stage and after hearing the parties they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Sada Shiva Pandey is the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.676 of 1992. He has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-7-1991 (Annexure-8) whereby the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the appellate order dated 25-10-1991 (Annexure-11) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are consequential. Similar reliefs have been prayed for by Jainath Prasad Sinha, petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.727 of 1992. In his case the disciplinary authority has inflicted punishment of reduction in the basic pay to the next lower stage for a period of one year. Since the facts are somewhat similar, I shall take the tacts from C. W. J. C. No.676 of 1992. 3. The petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.676/92 is an employee of the state Bank of India. While he was working at Bihta Branch of the Bank a memorandum was issued to him on 7-8-1986 by the Regional Manager stating that the petitioner has committed several irregularities while officiating as passing Officer in the Savings Bank Section in October and December 1981 at the Arrah Branch, and that he had passed three withdrawal forms paid across the teller counter without insisting for production of pass books with a view to verify them with the ledger. On account of such action the Bank had been defrauded. The particulars regarding the dates, account number: name of the persons and the-amount were also detailed in the memorandum. It was also alleged that while the petitioner was working as a Teller at the arrah Branch in June and September 1985 he had made payments to two unauthorised persons He was, therefore, called upon to furnish his explanation. The petitioner requested his Branch Manager to grant leave etc. for going to Arrah to inspect and verify the documents to enable him to explain the matter. The petitioner requested his Branch Manager to grant leave etc. for going to Arrah to inspect and verify the documents to enable him to explain the matter. However, ultimately when the petitioner went to arrah Branch of the Bank, he was not able to see the necessary documents, as he was informed that the documents bad been seized by the Central bureau of Investigation, However, the petitioner furnish his explanation of 20th February, 1987 mentioning therein that since the matter related to events which took place long ago, it was very difficult for the petitioner to recollect as to what actually transpired. He, therefore, requested that he should be allowed to verify/peruse the vouchers and documents to enable him to give a reply. Subsequently, chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 12-11-1987 calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him for the lapses indicated therein. The aforesaid chargesheet has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Regional Manager on 2nd december, 1987, and stated that it was not possible to recollect the matter as it related to events which had taken place long ago. He, therefore, claimed that 14 documents mentioned by him may be made available to him for perusal. However, the documents asked for by the petitioner was not made available to him. 4. An enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner participated in the said proceeding which culminated in the report of the enquiry officer dated 19-4-1991. The said enquiry report is Annexure-5 to the writ application. It appears from the enquiry report that whereas in the charge-sheet an allegation was made against the petitioner that he had connived with one b. M. Mishra in defrauding the Bank, the enquiry officer found no evidence of connivance with the aforesaid B. M. Mishra, but found that the petitioner was negligent in the performance of his duties, inasmuch as he did not follow the relevant rules and did not insist upon production of the pass books while passing payment or making payment The master-mind behind the fraud was the aforesaid B. M. Mishra, but if the petitioner had not been negligent, the fraud would have been detected He also observed that in the Arrah arrah Branch of the Bank the established practice and procedure were not being followed by anyone. 5. 5. In view of the order which I ultimately propose to pass in this writ petition, I am not referring to other facts, else it may prejudice the case of the parties. 6. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the finding of negligence recorded by the enquiry officer called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished, and in the case of the petitioner, the proposed punishment was stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his show cause, but the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order (Annexure-8) inflicting punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 7. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office, Patna (respondent No.1 herein ). The appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority in the following terms : "with reference to your appeal dated 17-09-1991 against the order passed by the concerned Disciplinary Authority, I have examined all the related papers of the case and the arguments which you placed before me in the personal hearing on 21-10-1991, 2. Since no new and extenuating factors have been brought out by you in the personal hearing, I am not inclined to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority I find no merit in your appeal and rejected the same. " 8. Similar are the facts in C. W. J. C. No 727 of 1992, and in that case as well the enquiry officer did not find that the petitioner acted in connivance with B. M. Mishra, who master-minded the fraud, but was negligent in the discharge of his duties. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer imposed punishment of reduction in his basic pay to the next lower stage for a period of one year. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by the appellate authority in the following terms : "with reference to your appeal dated 06-09-1991 against the order passed by the concerned Disciplinary Authority, I have examined all the related papers of the case and the arguments which you placed before me in the personal hearing on 22-10-1991.2. Since no new and extenuating factors have been brought out by you in the personal hearing, I am not inclined to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Since no new and extenuating factors have been brought out by you in the personal hearing, I am not inclined to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority. I find no merit in your appeal and reject the same," 9. Counsel for the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.676/92 submitted that after submission of charge-sheet he had requested the Bank to permit him to peruse 14 documents listed by him in his representation dated 2-12-1987. Those documents were not made available to him, and, therefore, it was submitted that the enquiry proceeding was vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the documents asked for by him were the documents upon which the Bank relied in support of the charges enumerated in the chargesheet. It is not the case of the petitioner that any document referred to in the charge-sheet was not supplied. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank was obliged to supply to the petitioner copies of only those documents upon which reliance was placed in the charge-sheet and not other documents which the petitioner required for preparing his defence, counsel for the petitioner did not press the point any further. Moreover, it appears from the record that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding. If he really required those documents, at the stage of enquiry he could have requested ths enquiry officer to direct the Bank to produce those documents which would enable him to justify his defence. No such request appears to have been made I, therefore, find that no irregularity was committed in the conduct of the enquiry proceeding which could have vitiated the proceeding. 10. It is then submitted that the enquiry officer has not recorded a finding against the petitioners on the basis of evidence on record and that the finding of negligence was a mere ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. It is difficult for me to uphold this contention. When the charge sheet was submitted, it was the case of the Rank that the petitioner had acted in a particular manner with a view to aid 8. M. Mishra in the perpetration of fraud. It is difficult for me to uphold this contention. When the charge sheet was submitted, it was the case of the Rank that the petitioner had acted in a particular manner with a view to aid 8. M. Mishra in the perpetration of fraud. The enquiry officer has found that though B. M. Mishra masterminded of the fraud, the petitioner fell an easy victim to his designs and made payments without following the established procedure. He was, therefore, not guilty of connivance with B M. Mishra, but was guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties. In this context I may refer to the plea of the petitioner before the enquiry officer. It was submitted on his behalf before the enquiry officer that the petitioner had passed the Saving Bank withdrawal for Rs.1700/- without insisting on the pass book, because of the prevalent practice at the Arrah Branch at the material time. He similarly passed the voucher for Rs.2000/- paid by the Teller. The usages and practice of the branch were such that all withdrawals and cheques received and paid at the Teller-counter were mostly without pass book which were best known to the authorities of the Bank. It will thus appear that even the petitioner did not deny that before passing payment or making payments he had made any verification from the pass book of the person concerned- He made the payment or passed payment without insisting upon production of the pass book for this his justification was that in that Branch the practice was not to insist upon production of pass book. The petitioner, therefore, virtually admitted that he did not follow the established practice of insisting upon production of pass book before authorities or making payment. His only explanation appears to be that none else was doing so. In these circums-tances if the enquiry officer has recorded a finding against the petitioner that he was, negligent in the discharge of his duties, I cannot say that the finding is not based on material on record. 11. Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1277 (Nand Kishore Prasad v State of Bihar ). Counsel referred to paragraph No 18 of the decision. 11. Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1277 (Nand Kishore Prasad v State of Bihar ). Counsel referred to paragraph No 18 of the decision. In my view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment do not support the case of the petitioner because I have come to the conclusion that the enquiry officer reached his conclusion on the basis of material on record which pointed to the guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charge against him. Counsel then relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1361 (A. L, Kalra V/s. P. ande. Corporation of India ltd.) He pointedly referred to paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11 and 29 of the decision. In my view, that decision also does not support his case in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case it was found by the court that the report of the enquiry officer was defective and appeared to be merely the record of enquiry and recapitulation of allegation and explanation. The finding recorded by him separately in Annexure-M was not satisfactory, as that was a bald document of two paragraphs in which the enquiry officer recorded that the appellant had contravened certain rules. By process this conclusion was reached or what events appealed to him was left to speculation. The reasons in support of the conclusion were conspicuous by their absence. The findings were, therefore, held to be the ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. The same mistake was committed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of this case, because I have already held that the finding of the enquiry officer was based on material on record and it was not possible to contend that the findings recorded by him were mere ipse dixit. 12. It was then submitted that the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and in a mechanical manner rejected the appeal. I have earlier reproduced the two appellate orders passed in these two writ petitions. They are virtually in the same terms. 12. It was then submitted that the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and in a mechanical manner rejected the appeal. I have earlier reproduced the two appellate orders passed in these two writ petitions. They are virtually in the same terms. There is no discussion, however brief, to satisfy the Court that the appellate authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellate authority has authority to go into questions of fact as also questions of law. It is open to it to consider the legality and propriety of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. When an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority and the appellant sets out bis grounds in support of the appeal, the appellate authority is expected to apply its mind to the representations made by the appellant, and in the light of those representations consider the legality and propriety of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It was indeed contended on behalf of the petitioner that in large number of other cases the appellate authority has passed its orders in identical terms, which supports the contention that the appellate authority has acted in a mechanical manner and passed its orders without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The submission cannot be brushed aside. The appellate orders are in identical terms. They do not disclose the reasoning of the appellate authority. While the appellate authority is not expected to write a detailed judgment, it is at least expected to record its reasons, even if briefly, to satisfy the Court that it had considered the relevant aspects of the matter before reaching its conclusion, I cannot say that the appellate orders in these writ petitions satisfy that test. I am. therefore, of the view that the appellate orders must be quashed and the appellate authority be directed to reconsider the appeals and pass orders in accordance with law. 13. I am hasten to add that I have deliberately not dealt with the facts of the case in detai!, but I have only referred to those facts which were necessary to consider the submission urged before us that the report of the enquiry officer was not based on evidence on record. 13. I am hasten to add that I have deliberately not dealt with the facts of the case in detai!, but I have only referred to those facts which were necessary to consider the submission urged before us that the report of the enquiry officer was not based on evidence on record. I have come to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on evidence on record, but I should not be understood to have recorded any concluded finding that the view taken by the disciplinary authority is necessarily the correct view or that any latter view of the evidence is not possible. Nothing said in this judgment should prejudice the mind of the appellate authority, and it must independently apply its mind to the facts of the case and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law. 14. In the result, these writ petitions are partly allowed. Annexure-11 in both the writ petitions are quashed, and the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law having regard to the obsevations made in this judgment as to manner in which the appeals should be considered and disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.