Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. From the records it appears that the petitioner was dismissed under Memo No. 3326 dated 28.3.1998 and being aggrieved by the same, he had preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 25.5.1998. The Respondent-Board did not decide the appeal on merits, therefore, the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4529 of 2003 (Amarendra Prasad V/s. Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna & ors.) The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 8.5.2003 requiring the appellate authority to decide the appeal within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. It appears that thereafter the appeal was taken up for consideration and the Board vide resolution dated 16.7.2003 dismissed the appeal. The order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 852 dated 1.8.2003. As the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner has again come to this Court inter alia submitting that the appellate order passed by the Board is perfunctory, casual and cavalier and is no order in the eyes of law and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. 3. Sri Navniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the Board wanted to file the counter but on being shown the order contained in Annexure-42, simply submitted that in a case of affirmance the appellate authority is not required to give detailed reasons and if the order is intelligible and shows application of mind then such order can always be maintained and in any case the High Court not being an appellate authority is not required to look into the merits of the matter. 4. True it is that in a case of affirmance, the appellate authority/appellate court is not required to give detailed reasons/reasonings but the basic consideration is that the order should be intelligible, should be self-contained and should provide sufficient materials either to the higher court, higher authority or to an authority which can revise the order. If the order lacks in these basic requirements and simply shows that the order passed by the Subordinate Court/Tribunal is affirmed then that would be no order in the eyes of law. 5. It is to be seen that the Appeal Memo runs into as many as 25 pages. If the order lacks in these basic requirements and simply shows that the order passed by the Subordinate Court/Tribunal is affirmed then that would be no order in the eyes of law. 5. It is to be seen that the Appeal Memo runs into as many as 25 pages. In the last 4 lines of the said Appeal Memo, the appellant has made a prayer for his personal appearance and hearing through his counsel. In the resolution dated 16.7.2003, out of 9 lines 7 have been dedicated to reject the prayer of the petitioner for personal hearing or hearing through counsel. The last two and half lines simply show that after due deliberation on the matter on record, the Board rejects the appeal. if this is the order then I am sorry to say that this is no order in the eyes of law. The order would still be respected even if it is condemned as perfunctory or cavalier. In fact, this is no order in the eyes of law; it shows no application of mind. It appears that the Board of Directors in its hot haste to observe the direction issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4529 of 2003 had dismissed the appeal. The order/resolution/minutes cannot be allowed to stand. Those observations are accordingly quashed. 6. The Board is hereby directed to reconsider the appeal on its own merits and decide the same by a speaking order, preferably within three months from the date of submission/receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no costs.