ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal (Annexure - 31) dated May 30, 1990, against which his appeal dated June 30, 1990 (Annexure-32) was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, the decision of which was communicated, vide (Annexure P- 33) by a covering letter dated January 22, 1991, wherein, it is stated that the Deputy General Manager (Inspection), the Appellate Authority, after going through the appeal together with relevant records of the case did not find any reason to interfere with the penalty order of 'Dismissal' passed by the Zonal Manager, M.P. Zone, Bhopal, the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Shri K.P. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry on the charges levelled in the charge- sheet dated January 7, 1989 is against the principles of natural justice as the documents which form the basis of the charge-sheet; including the report of the vigilance cell were not supplied to the petitioner, therefore, he could not file the reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner demanded copies and objected in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has noted the same in proceedings dated April 21, 1989. It was also contended that the Appellate Authority without due application of mind and without considering the grounds raised in the memo of appeal dismissed the appeal by a non speaking order, therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed. 3. Shri Rajendra Menon, learned counsel for respondent Bank contended that all the documents including the statement recorded during the vigilance enquiry were supplied to the petitioner on June 27, 1989, only the copy of vigilance report was not supplied as that did not form part of the enquiry. Reliance was placed on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors., 1985 (3) SCC P.378. As regards the appeal it was submitted that infact a detailed order (Annexure R-5) was passed in appeal on January 18, 1991, but that was communicated to the petitioner on May 12, 1992, during the pendency of the present petition. As the order of Appellate Authority is of affirmance, it does not require recording of reasons, as ruled by Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. S.S. Koshal 1994 Supp. As the order of Appellate Authority is of affirmance, it does not require recording of reasons, as ruled by Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. S.S. Koshal 1994 Supp. (2) SCC p. 468. 4. After hearing counsel and without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner relating to the legality and propriety of the enquiry, I am of the opinion that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained for the simple reason that in the communication of the order of rejection (Annexure P-33) there is no mention that the Appellate Authority has passed a reasoned order, the copy of which was not annexed nor even supplied later. It is only, after notice of the petition the order of the Appellate Authority was supplied during the pendency of the petition, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the notice of the petition the order of Appellate Authority was prepared which is supported by a fact that it is only on the plain paper which does not even bear any stamp nor any number. In such circumstances the consideration of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, in the opinion of this Court was not in accordance with Rule 17 of the Dena Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, Sub-clause (ii) of which casts a mandatory duty on the Appellate Authority before passing the order in appeal to consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders thereon. The word 'consider' is of great significance which means due application of mind. Besides, for want of the order of Appellate Authority, the petitioner was also deprived of resorting to appropriate remedy of review or to make a challenge on the legality and propriety of the order passed in appeal. 5. Therefore, I am of the view that looking to the circumstances even though a detailed order has been passed, but which was not communicated to the petitioner and it is only after notice and during the pendency of the petition the copy was supplied to the petitioner. No reason has been given why the copy of the order of Appellate Authority was not supplied to the petitioner. No reason has been given why the copy of the order of Appellate Authority was not supplied to the petitioner. There is no mention in the order passed by the Appellate Authority on January 18, 1991 in (Annexure P-33) the communication to the petitioner, which casts a suspicion that the order of the Appellate Authority was prepared after the petitioner approached this court. In the circumstances the order passed by Appellate Authority deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The Appellate Authority shall reconsider the appeal and pass order afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by its earlier order. The question whether the petitioner would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits or not from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatements if ultimately, ordered by the Appellate Authority shall also be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 5. No costs, Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.