M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition raises an interesting facet with regard to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment in a situation where it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry officer. That such a power exists is undisputed, but the petitioner's learned Counsel has seriously assailed the manner in which that power has been exercised, insofar as, he relies on the well defined principles of Service Law for the purpose of establishing that the order in question is assailable. The facts in this case hardly require to be recounted. The petitioner who was an employee of the Coffee Board and at the relevant time was the Depot Manager was served with a charge-sheet essentially holding him liable for shortage of approximately 1279 Kgs. of coffee. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer after a detailed and careful verification of all the material recorded a finding that the charge was not proved. This report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority which disagreed with the findings. He served a Memo on the petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why he should not be held guilty of the charge and a penalty of reduction of his salary should not be imposed on him apart from recovery of the value of the Coffee in question. This Memo is sought to be attacked on the ground that regulation 12 prescribes a time limit of 15 days whereas the disciplinary Authority only gave the petitioner ten days' time to file his reply. The petitioner's Counsel therefore submits that this was a serious breach of procedure to the extent that the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of showing cause. I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that undoubtedly the time frame fell slightly short of the prescribed one but no prejudice was caused to the petitioner insofar as he did submit his reply. ( 2 ) THE real head of attack as far as the petitioner is concerned comes from the quality of the order passed by the Disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted the entire enquiry, it was he who recorded the evidence and evaluated it and that he has given unassailable reasons for having held that the charge was not proved. Learned Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted the entire enquiry, it was he who recorded the evidence and evaluated it and that he has given unassailable reasons for having held that the charge was not proved. If this report was to be set aside, it could only have been done by pointing out the improprieties involved therein or that it was erroneous or perverse but more importantly by substituting that report with a better or a sounder order. It is submitted that where the Disciplinary Authority is generally in agreement with the report, that it is open to him to accept the report without stating precisely on what grounds he has accepted it, which position is well settled in law. The conflict of views arise in a situation where the Disciplinary Authority does not agree with the enquiry report in which case it is obligatory on his part to substitute his report with an entirely new one setting out fresh, clear and cogent reasons why he does not agree with the earlier report and more importantly the reasons why he has recorded different findings. I may mention here that in a case where the enquiry Officer records an adverse verdict and the Disciplinary authority disagrees with it, the duty cast on the Disciplinary authority is not half so serious as in the reverse situation where the Disciplinary Authority records an adverse finding in the face of a favourable one. In the latter situation, it would be absolutely obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to justify the findings through a detailed speaking order which does not necessarily have to be a long one but it must have the basic ingredients whereby it can be substantiated both on facts and in law from the record. In the light of this position, learned Counsel submits that the order of the Disciplinary Authority in this case which has set out only two grounds is virtually no order at all. He has attacked the first ground as being totally and wholly erroneous and as far as the second ground is concerned, it hardly needs to be referred to because the Disciplinary Authority contends that the officer has added nothing to what he has said earlier. He has attacked the first ground as being totally and wholly erroneous and as far as the second ground is concerned, it hardly needs to be referred to because the Disciplinary Authority contends that the officer has added nothing to what he has said earlier. There are no positive findings nor are there reasons set out in support thereof and therefore the order would be legally unsustainable insofar as the recording of findings are virtually unsubstantiated in this background and would therefore have to fall on the ground of arbitrariness. ( 3 ) THE position instead of improving, considerably worsens at the appellate stage. The basic function of an appeal is that the superior Authority is required to review the order appealed against and the Memo of Appeal in such a case indicates the grounds on which the appeal has been filed and which may be considered. The record requires to be re-evaluated and a fair adjudication done for the purpose of deciding as to whether the order was sustainable and is liable to be upheld or not. The petitioner's learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the quality of the appellate order which can hardly be defined as an order. It merely sets out the history or background of the proceeding and ends with the conclusion that the Appellate authority agrees with the Disciplinary Authority. It is against this last order that the present petition has been filed. I need to record here that the consequences of these orders are relatively serious insofar as the petitioner was faced with a severe punishment insofar as his four increments were withheld and he was called upon to make good an amount of Rs. 26,500/- The injustice complained of therefore is of some seriousness which is why the petitioner has approached this Court. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, it is submitted that this being a departmental proceeding, it was unnecessary for the disciplinary Authority to have set down in the form of a detailed judgment, his reasoning and his findings. The order was sought to be defended principally on the ground that the Disciplinary authority placed reliance on the admission of the petitioner with regard to the shortage. Secondly, it was pointed out that the defence canvassed by the petitioner namely, that the shortage of weight could have been because of dryness, has been rejected. The order was sought to be defended principally on the ground that the Disciplinary authority placed reliance on the admission of the petitioner with regard to the shortage. Secondly, it was pointed out that the defence canvassed by the petitioner namely, that the shortage of weight could have been because of dryness, has been rejected. Consequently, it is submitted that the charges stood proved. This procedure unfortunately has no legal sanction insofar as, it is obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority particularly in the face of the earlier Enquiry Officer's report exonerating the petitioner, to have recorded very cogently as to what was the material that brought home the charges. At the very highest, it can be held that the Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion that the shortage had in fact taken place. This is far different from holding that the petitioner was liable for that shortage. ( 5 ) AS regards the Appellate Authority, the conventional argument has been pressed forward namely, that where the appellate Authority agreed with the Disciplinary Authority's finding that it was unnecessary to record any independent reasons. As far as this last aspect of the matter is concerned, on behalf of the Appellate Authority it has been submitted that it is not a mandatory requirement that the petitioner should have been formally given a hearing or for that matter, that the appellate Authority should have included in its order elaborate recitals. I find from the Appellate Authority's order that there are only recitals, no reasoning no conclusions. This is hardly a sustainable order. It is quite clear that the Appellate Authority has abdicated its functions. The real damage or tragedy in this case arose from the fact chat to my mind there has been total non-application of the mind on the part of the Appellate authority insofar as, if the Disciplinary Authority's order was so much as read or scrutinised, the Appellate Authority would have realised that the order was inherently defective and therefore could never have been confirmed. The function of the Appellate authority is never to act as a rubber stamp for what the earlier authority has done because in such a situation, the Appellate authority is completely failing in its functions. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the law on the point, I do not need to elaborate very much. The function of the Appellate authority is never to act as a rubber stamp for what the earlier authority has done because in such a situation, the Appellate authority is completely failing in its functions. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the law on the point, I do not need to elaborate very much. The Supreme Court had in the decision in the Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v union of India and Another, occasion to deal with the responsibilities of an Appellate Authority and in sum and substance, had culled out the principle that when the Appellate authority exercises quasi-judicial functions, there is not only the essential requirement of strictly observing the Rules of Natural justice but that the quality of the order must indicate that those principles have been observed in their completeness. Apart from this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a recent decision of the Madras High Court in K. Manickam v Bharath heavy Electricals Ltd. and Others. The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court after considering the law on the point in great detail, recorded the conclusion that the duty of an appellate Authority is to pass a legally appropriate order and the learned Judge had while dealing with the manner in which an appropriate order is to be passed held :"a non-speaking order by an Appellate Authority is unjustifiable". One needs to take serious cognisance of the fact that in a case where the consequences of the order are extremely damaging to the career and reputation of the employee and more so where a major penalty is sought to be imposed on the employee that the orders passed which are subject to the process of judicial review, must pass the strict test of judicial scrutiny. The Disciplinary authority's order which was confirmed by the Appellate authority in the present case miserably fails to pass the test. Under these circumstances, the orders in question are quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) A strong plea was advanced on behalf of the respondents that if the orders in question are defective on the ground that they are devoid of reasons, that the matter be remanded for a de novo hearing. In appropriate cases, such a course of action may be justified. ( 7 ) A strong plea was advanced on behalf of the respondents that if the orders in question are defective on the ground that they are devoid of reasons, that the matter be remanded for a de novo hearing. In appropriate cases, such a course of action may be justified. In the present case, I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer which to my mind is a well considered and very correct appraisal of the material on record. The conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that the material did not justify an adverse verdict ought not to have been interfered with by the Disciplinary Authority. That being the position, no remand is warranted as far as the present case is concerned because it would only waste precious time and on the other hand consequently, handicap and prejudice the present petitioner. ( 8 ) THE petition accordingly succeeds. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) THE petitioner's learned Counsel points out to me that theorders have been partially implemented to the extent that recoveries have been made and to that extent that the salary of the petitioner has been reduced. As a necessary consequence of his success in this petition, the status quo ante will have to be restored insofar as the respondents shall compute and pay to the petitioner the shortfall of his emoluments as also the amount wrongly recovered from him within a period of three months. The petitioner's learned Counsel shall communicate to the respondents the substance of this order and the respondents shall comply with the directions of this Court within the time prescribed. ( 10 ) IT is clarified that the period of three months shall becomputed from the date of receipt of this order by the respondents. --- *** --- .