S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the dis ciplinary authority exercising the jurisdiction contemplated under Regu lation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 framed in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 whereunder a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect bad been awarded to the petitioner which order was later on affirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the orders with a direction to restore him back to the position which he would have occupied if the impugned orders have not been passed against him with all monetary and other benefits. 2. I have heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and Sri R. A. Rizvi, learned Counsel for the respondents in opposition to the writ petition. 3. The relevant facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was holding the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I at the rice take over Centre at Shahabad in the district of Hardoi during the period 23-11-1984 to 11-2-1985. The Food Corporation of India had a storage depot at Hardoi. During the period in question 58260 bags of rice were purchased at Shahabad Centre. The peti tioner is alleged to have accepted taken over BRL rice stock with excessive broken and dehusk grains without checking the quality and got it accepted at the deport at Hardoi. The stock of rice purchased from Various centres other than Shahabad were also stacked in the Depot at Hardoi. The stock was mostly of rice raw common and rice fine. On an inspection. of the stock at the Depot by the vigilance squad samples were drawn and analysed which indicated that some stock was BRL on account of excessive percentage of broken/dehusk rice. The stock was mostly of rice raw common and rice fine. On an inspection. of the stock at the Depot by the vigilance squad samples were drawn and analysed which indicated that some stock was BRL on account of excessive percentage of broken/dehusk rice. In the circumstances, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet containing the charges that he had failed to maintain the absolute integrity, devotion to duty and had failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully and acted in a manner which was un becoming of a corporation employee inasmuch as he had accepted/taken over BRL rice stock from State Government and also in connivance with the Technical Assistant posted at FSD/cwc Hardoi and got it accepted at the Depot. The petitioner denied the charges asserting that the rice stock taken over by him and delivered to the Food Storage Depot Hardoi fully conformed to the quality specification laid down by the Food Corporation of India and no complaint in respect thereof was made at any point of time by any of the consignees. It was also asserted that at the Depot large stocks of rice taken over from various rice mills and various purchase centres apart from the purchase centre at Shahabad had been brought and stacked. The rice bags stacked in the Depot brought from various Centres other than Shahabad were mixed up and it had become impossible to pick out the bags taken over by the petitioner and delivered by him to the depot. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. The inquiry officer vide his report dated 15-7-1991 came to the conclusion that there was no record of CWC godown of Hardoi where Food Corporation of India stock was stored. It also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that charged official was associated in joint sampling and joint analysis. It was also Found that there was no clear cut bifurcation as to how much stock was received from the charged official at FSD. , Hardoi, CWC Hardoi, and Bangarmau. It was observed in the report that there was no evidence of charged official conniving with anybody in accepting or getting accepted any BRL stock. It was also Found that there was no clear cut bifurcation as to how much stock was received from the charged official at FSD. , Hardoi, CWC Hardoi, and Bangarmau. It was observed in the report that there was no evidence of charged official conniving with anybody in accepting or getting accepted any BRL stock. However, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that out of 58,000 bags purchased by charged official only 300 bags were found BRL out of the stock at the Depotwhere stocks of centres had also been stored/mixed together While recording the aforesaid finding, it was also observed that it was not possible to identify it stock of the charged official was BRL. The recommendations of the inquiry officer were to the following effect : "charges-not proved Charged official is found responsible for 300 bags BRL out of 58,000 bags purchased by him but 300 bags too are not identified as BRL being raised with others". 5. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 17-12-1991 accept ing the report of the inquiry officer imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner. The disciplinary autho rity in its order observed that the aforesaid conclusion had been reached after dispassionate examination of relevant records of the case, representation of the charged official and inquiry report and applying independent mind. 6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of an appeal, which was dismissed observing that the appellate authority had carefully considered the appeal with reference to the records of the case and also the comments of the disciplinary authority on the appeal and was of the opinion that the disciplinary authority had correctly held the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved and that the punishment awarded was not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that even on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer which had not been distrurbed under the impugned orders the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in the matter relating to the proof of misconduct with which the petitioner stood charged is arbitrary and manifestly erroneous. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that even on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer which had not been distrurbed under the impugned orders the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in the matter relating to the proof of misconduct with which the petitioner stood charged is arbitrary and manifestly erroneous. It has also been urged that there was no material on the record which could connect the samples taken from the stocks maintained at the Depot with the rice taken over by the petitioner at Shahabab and delivered by him at the Depot. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the allegations made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition to the effect that during the period when the rice bags taken over by the petitioner had been delivered at the depot, the rice taken by the technical assistants deployed at the Hardoi purchase centres had also been delivered at the Depot and the entire quantity of rice was stacked together, in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation the assertions that stocks purchased by the technical assistant other than the petitioner were also delivered at CWC Hardoi, FSD Bangarmau was not disputed. The learned Counsel for petitioner laid emphasis on the fact in the circumstances on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer that there was no clear cut bifurcation as to how much stock was received from the charged official at FSD, Hardoi, CWC Hardoi and Bangarmau and specially when the stocks of other centres taken over by other technical assistants were mixed together and it was not possible to identify the stock of charged official was BRL there could be no justification for holding the charge levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that two other technical assistants wore charged with the identical mis-conduct as levelled against the petitioner for the rice purchased during the period in question and stacked at the depot but B. N. Singh, Technical Assistant Grade-I posted at Hardoi was exonerated of the charges by the appellate authority on the ground that the authenticity of the result of the analysis of the samples was questionable and that the stocks in question had been liquidated and did not invite any complaint from the destination and further there was no loss to the Corporation. Similarly another technical assistant Sri S. K. Mitra who was charged with similar allegations as levelled against the petitioner with respect to the purchases during the period 24-11-1984 to 13-2-1985 was exonerated of the charges levelled against him on the ground that the findings of the inquiry officer were quite vague and the conclusions drawn by the inquiry Officer were some what ambiguous. The appellate authority had observed in the case of Sri Mitra that the inquiry officer had concluded that the charges had been proved on the basis of preponderance of probability which was not a satisfactory conclusion particularly when while recording the finding, the inquiry Officer had categorically mentioned that no opportunity for joint sampling/joint analysis was provided to the charged official and that the stocks from where the samples were drawn were kept in a mixed condition in the stocks as a result of which it was not possible to identify the stocks pertaining to the charged official. On the strength of the. findings recorded by the appellate authority in the cases relating to Sri S. K. Mitra and B. N. Singh, referred to above it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that considering the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the present case, no conclusion other than as reached in the case of B. N. Singh or Mr. Mitra could have been reached. 8. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has however, tried to support the impugned order and has also urged that since the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy of review which is available under the regulations, no interference is called for by this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. 8. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has however, tried to support the impugned order and has also urged that since the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy of review which is available under the regulations, no interference is called for by this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Regulation 74 of the Regulations provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations, the Board may, at any time either on its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any enquiry and review any order made under the Regulations. Regulation 74 (3) provides that an application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these regulations. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 74 (3) of the Regulations, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy for getting his grievances redressed in review which had to be dealt with id the same manner as if it were an appeal under the same regulations. 10. The provisions contained in Regulation 72 of the Regulations require apart from other thing which the appellate authority has to consider while disposing of the appeal that it has also to consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record. In the present case, the appellate authority has passed a cryptic order, disposing of the appeal of the petitioner which contains only con clusions without giving any reasons therefore. When the relevant regulations specifically require the appellate authority to consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record or not it becomes obligatory on the appellate authority to give a reasoned order upholding or reversing the findings of the disciplinary authority disclosing the application of mind to the evidence brought on record. It such a circumstance, the appellate authority has to record its own findings or opinion not dehors to the material and evidence on record and the conclusion reached or ultimate inference drawn should be indicative of an application of mind to the material placed on the record which is relevant for the purpose. It such a circumstance, the appellate authority has to record its own findings or opinion not dehors to the material and evidence on record and the conclusion reached or ultimate inference drawn should be indicative of an application of mind to the material placed on the record which is relevant for the purpose. It may also be noticed that the statutory duty cast upon the appellate authority under the Regulations to consider as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record or not clearly indicates that the term consider cannot be equated with disposal or put an end to. The use of the words consider necessarily leads to the inference that the requirement contemplated under the Regula tions was to assess before reaching a decision. While disposing of the appeal therefore, in view of the requirement contemplated under Regula tion 72 (2) (b) the appellate authority has to assess the propriety of the impugned findings on the evidence brought on record before reaching a decision and the order has to reflect such an assessment. 11. In the present case, taking into consideration the fact that the appellate authority had already taken a decision in the case of A. K. Mitra and Sri B. N. Singh to which a reference had been made above who had been charged with identical misconduct as levelled against the petitioner concerning the purchases made during the same period and relating to the same depot it would be appropriate that the entire matter be considered by the Zonal Manager, respondent No. 2 without relegating the petitioner to the remedy provided under the regulation 74 indicated above which will unnecessarily delay the matter and further considering that the legal position in regard to the implication arising under the provisions contained in regulation 72 of the Regulations as clarified hereinabove, has been totally overlooked by the appellate authority. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. The Zonal Manager, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the entire matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .