JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of his dismissal from Bank's service, contained in Annexures 1 and 2, and the appellate order of the Chairman and Managing Director, communicated by the Chief Manager of the respondent-Central Bank of India, contained in Annexure 3, whereby and whereunder the Chairman and the Managing Director has declined his appeal for reinstatement in the Bank's service. 2. Mr. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders are bad in law, especially on two grounds. Firstly, because the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before the order of punishment, contained in Annexures 1 and 2, was passed and secondly, that the appellate order, contained in Annexure 3, does not contain any reason dealing with question raised by the petitioner in his appeal. 3. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner though after the order of punishment, contained in Annexure 1, was passed, but he had an ample opportunity to defend himself against the said report before the appellate forum and under such circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Vishwa Mohan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310 , non-supply of the report before imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority would not vitiate the enquiry. 4. There may be some substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, but since I find that in the appellate order, contained in Annexure 3, there is no discussion on the questions raised by the petitioner, it is difficult to uphold the validity of the said order. By now it is well settled that the appellate order not assigning reason for decision is bad in law. A reference in this regard can be made to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Raja vs. Union of India ( AIR 1967 S.C. 1606 ) and in the case of Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. A reference in this regard can be made to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Raja vs. Union of India ( AIR 1967 S.C. 1606 ) and in the case of Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. vs. Union of India ( AIR 1976 S.C. 1785 ) and of this Court in the case of Bhola Prasad vs. U.A. Goswami (AIR 1963 Patna 437) and in the case of Dr. S. Poddar vs. Patna University (1970 BLJR 759). 5. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, stated that except the order, contained in Annexure 3, no other order on his appeal was ever communicated to the petitioner. Bare perusal of Annexure 3 shows that the appeal of the petitioner for his reinstatement in the Bank's service has been declined by one line order. 6. Under such circumstances, the appellate order, contained in Annexure 3, cannot be sustained and, is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and disposal of appeal, in accordance with law. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the show cause/written statement submitted by the petitioner was lost in bus accident and thus the copy is not available with him. As such, he requested the authority in the Bank to give a copy of the show cause/written statement so that he may prefer more effective appeal and defend himself Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank fairly submitted that the petitioner can get a copy of the same from the appellate authority and for that he should request the appellate authority, along with a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner may request the appellate authority for supply of the copy of the show cause/written statement, if any, filed by him and the appellate authority shall supply a copy of the same and give him opportunity to file supplementary grounds assailing the validity of the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority within a fixed time which, if filed, shall also be considered while disposing of the appeal, in accordance with law. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.