Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, AG.CJ. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. 13485 of 1991. He was the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He retired from service on 31-3-1990. While working as Senior Co-operative Inspector he was appointed on deputation basis as full time Member and Convenor of the Administrative Committee of Changanacherry Taluk Co-operative Consumer Stores during 10-9-1975 to 15-8-1977. Certain irregularities on his part were found out and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. As a result of the full fledged enquiry his explanation was found unacceptable and the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by him was not successful. Appellate Authority's decision was challenged in O.P.8067 of 1985. In that Original Petition this Court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the entire matter and passed fresh orders in accordance with Rule 31(2) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. There after Ext. P-3 order was passed upholding the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. That was challenged in O.P. 13485 of 1991. The learned Single Judge held that the punishment imposed on the appellant is not in any way excessive or unreasonable and accordingly dismissed the Original Petition. 2 Appellant's main contention is that the punishment imposed against him is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and that Ext. P-2 order does not contain any reason at all. 3. Ext. P-3 order shows that the appellant was heard in person on 16-3-1990. Appellant admitted that there was mistake on his part and that it was done under serious threat and pressure from the non-official directors of the Stores. That explanation was found not acceptable to the first respondent. Considering the fact that the penalty imposed upon the appellant was rather minor in nature compared to the gravity of the charges proved against him the first respondent found no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. From Ext. P-3 it can be discerned that the first respondent while disposing of the appeal had strictly followed the provisions contained in R.31(2) of the Rules. As the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority's failure to mention detailed reasons cannot be held to he ground to vitiate the entire proceedings. From Ext. P-3 it can be discerned that the first respondent while disposing of the appeal had strictly followed the provisions contained in R.31(2) of the Rules. As the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority's failure to mention detailed reasons cannot be held to he ground to vitiate the entire proceedings. As the first respondent has considered the Entire matter in dispute having also given a personal hearing to the appellant mere failure to analyse the entire case against him in a detailed manner cannot be considered to be a circumstance to hold that the confirmation of the order of the disciplinary authority is bad. As the first respondent has affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority the law does not enjoin narration of separate reasons for the confirmation of the order of the disciplinary authority. It is apposite to refer to S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (A.I.R 1990 SC 1984) where the Supreme Court has held that the appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such the order of the disciplinary authority, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. As the first respondent has agreed with the findings of the disciplinary authority and came to the conclusion that the punishment is not in any way excessive or unreasonable it is not possible to hold that the learned Single Judge went wrong in passing the impugned judgment. We find no reason to interfere. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.