V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as divisional controller in bijapur division of Karnataka state road transport corporation. He invited applications for filling-up the posts of drivers and after completing the formalities a selection list was prepared and after obtaining the approval of the managing director, appointment orders were issued. In that connection the security officer submitted a report as per Annexure b, dated 22-12-1989 with regard to the corrupt activities of the petitioner. Based on that report, a charge-sheet as per Annexure-A was issued to the petitioner on 15-1-1990 alleging that he used influence for awarding passing marks to 168 candidates in the trade test and another 18 candidates and that he issued the appointment order to a person demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000-00 while the appointment was made on compassionate grounds and thereby the said omissions and commissions constituted misconduct under regulation 3 (1) of Karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations' ). The petitioner submitted written statement as per Annexure-C denying the charges. Enquiry was ordered under Annexure-D. After conducting the enquiry, a report was submitted on 10-4-1992 vide Annexure-n holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was given opportunity to have his say on the findings of the enquiry officer. Vide Annexure-o the petitioner submitted his representation pointing out the defects in the report and the irregularities committed by the enquiry officer. Satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority vide order at Annexure-p, dated 19-10-1992 exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. However, the board of directors suo motu reviewed the order of the disciplinary authority exercising the power under regulation 35 of the regulations, set aside the order of the disciplinary authority. Pursuant to the said decision, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order at Annexure-s, dated 20-4-1994 dismissing the petitioner from the service. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the impugned order at Annexure-u, dated 3-4-1995. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash both the orders at Annexures-s and u ( 2 ) SRI p. s. manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions and pointed out several irregularities and illegalities in the impugned orders and vehemently argued to quash the impugned orders. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash both the orders at Annexures-s and u ( 2 ) SRI p. s. manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions and pointed out several irregularities and illegalities in the impugned orders and vehemently argued to quash the impugned orders. It is not necessary to traverse to all those contentions in detail. Since counter is not filed on behalf of the respondent, the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned orders are tested with reference to the petition averments and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides. ( 3 ) SRI l. Govindaraju, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned orders contending that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of dismissal applying his mind and assigning reasons for accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and therefore this court should not interfere with the order of dismissal. He further submits that the appellate authority considered the material on record and the reasons assigned both by the enquiry officer in the report as also the disciplinary authority in the order of dismissal and came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal need not be interfered with and therefore the impugned orders does not call for interference. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I do not propose to consider the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as I am satisfied that the appellate authority failed to exercise its power properly. I have perused the records of the appellate authority. At page 6 of the impugned order at Annexure-u passed by the appellate authority, after referring to the facts of the case the reasons assigned are to the following effect. "the board of directors have perused the memorandum of appeal, findings of the inquiring authority and records of enquiry minutely. The board of directors have concurred with the findings of the inquiring authority and the reasons assigned by him holding the appellant guilty of the charges. Similarly, the board of directors have agreed with the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 20-4-1994. Additionally, the board of directors traversed the evidence of Sri G. K. jalavadi, P. W. 2, Sri H. Venkatesk P. W. 3t Sri G. S. Police goudar, p. w, 4 and Sri S. A. Thimmapure, P. W. 5. Similarly, the board of directors have agreed with the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 20-4-1994. Additionally, the board of directors traversed the evidence of Sri G. K. jalavadi, P. W. 2, Sri H. Venkatesk P. W. 3t Sri G. S. Police goudar, p. w, 4 and Sri S. A. Thimmapure, P. W. 5. The charges 1 and 3 have been established based on the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3. The testimony of these witnesses could not be impeached by the appellant either adducing oral or documentary evidence. Hence, the charge nos. 1. And 3 have been held proved. In respect of charge No. 2, the evidence of Sri G. S. Police goudar, P. W. 4 and the divisional security inspector would suffice to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The evidence of these witnesses could not be contradicted by the appellant. In the absence of rebuttal, evidence of the management cannot be disregarded. Hence this charge has been established. Therefore, the board of directors arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of this charge also". after recording as above, resolution No. 7085 passed by the board is extracted and the same is reproduced hereunder. "resolution No. 7085: having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the board of directors have unanimously decided the appeal of Sri Veerabhadranna filed against the impugned order of dismissal passed on 20-4-1994. In view of the facts discussed above, the board of directors are of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the orders of dismissal dated 20-4-1994 passed by the disciplinary authority and the same is confirmed. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is rejected". ( 5 ) THE above extracted portion is the decision of the board. A reading of the same makes crystal clear that the same is not in conformity with regulation 34 (2) (a) and (b) as certain vital aspects, such as the procedure followed in the conduct of the enquiry, whether non-compliance of the procedure prescribed in the regulations has resulted in failure of Justice etc. The reasons assigned by the board of directors is also extracted above. A perusal of the same indicates that except stating that the evidence of p. ws. The reasons assigned by the board of directors is also extracted above. A perusal of the same indicates that except stating that the evidence of p. ws. 1 to 3 could not be impeached by the petitioner and charges 1 and 3 are proved baaed on their evidence, no other reason is assigned. The defence of the petitioner, the contentions raised by him the evidence adduced were all discarded totally and they have not at all been either referred to or considered. Thus, the appellate authority has failed to exercise its appellate power while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Mr. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v Union of India and others. In paragraph 6 of the said decision, the apex court has observed thus. "the condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness;. it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal". in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the impugned order of the appellate authority at Annexure-u cannot be sustained as it has not assigned reasons for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-u is quashed. The appellate authority is directed to reconsider the appeal at Annexure-t filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with the regulations keeping in view the observations made during the course of this Order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. --- *** --- .