R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER who was Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was charge-sheeted for (1) unauthorised collection of about Rs. 24,000/- from the policy holders and issuing receipts fraudulently; (2) making unauthorised noting in the tender-sheet; and (3) transfer of several policies to the branch offices with ulterior motive. An inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed the order dismissing him from service and directing recovery of Rs. 23,923/- from him. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed appeal which has also been dismissed on April 22, 1997. Hence this writ petition challenging the aforesaid two orders. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions namely (1) the appellate order does not contain any reason, and (2) the statements of some of the witnesses which were considered by the Enquiry Officer have not been appreciated by the Disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the contention. ( 4 ) AS regards first submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon R. P. Bhatt v. Union of India and Ors. , 1986 (52) FLR 354 and Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ors. , (1986-II-LLJ-334) (SC ). The Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, (1996-I-LLJ-288) after considering the relevant case law including two cases mentioned above has held that the order of the Appellate Authority upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be invalidated, if it has considered the record and the proceedings pertaining to the disciplinary action and has also taken into account the relevant factors laid down by the Rules and Regulations. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority has considered and applied mind to the relevant factors and has held that the procedure prescribed by relevant regulation has been followed and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on evidence on record. The order of the Appellate Authority clearly indicates that the factors laid down in Regulation 46 were duly considered. The first submission is, accordingly, rejected. The order of the Appellate Authority clearly indicates that the factors laid down in Regulation 46 were duly considered. The first submission is, accordingly, rejected. ( 5 ) THE second submission also deserves the same fate. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner and jaipur and Ors. v. Prabhu Dayal Graver (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: "in our considered opinion, when the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the inquiry Officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to reappraise the evidence to arrive at the same findings. " ( 6 ) THAT apart, merely because there is no reference of some witness/evidence in the order, it does not mean that they were not considered by the disciplinary authority. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. .