JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.8.1998. (Annexure 8) dismissing his appeal as also the order dated 10.6.1998 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioner was chargesheeted on the ground of defalcation of customers money. He took part in the departmental proceeding. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. Respondent No. 2 being the disciplinary authority passed impugned order. Petitioners appeal before the Board of Directors was also dismissed. 3. Mr. Sahani appearing for the petitioner firstly submitted that the respondent No. 2 who was the disciplinary authority was also one of the members of the Board of Directors and therefore, the appellate order is bad. On this Mr. Bakshi, appearing for the respondents, drew my attention to the minutes of the meeting (Annexure B) to show that Mr. K.K. Sinha who was the then Chairman, did not take part in the agenda with regard to petitioners appeal; when it was taken up by the Board of Directors. This position has not been disputed by the petitioner. Thus, this objection of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 4. Mr. Sahani then submitted that from the order dated 10.6.1998 passed by the disciplinary authority it does not appear that he has applied his mind to the case. He further submitted that even from the minutes (Annexure B) it does not appear that mind was applied by the Board of Directors. 5. In reply, Mr. Bakshi submitted that the disciplinary authority considered petitioners show cause and all relevant documents and thereafter he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The appellate authority also agreed with the order of disciplinary authority. He submitted that while agreeing with the finding of Enquiry Officer, it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to repeat the reasons in the order. Similarly while accepting the order of the disciplinary authority, it was not necessary for the appellate authority to repeat the same thing again and again. 6. Though it appears from the order dated 10.6.1998 (Annexure 6) passed by the disciplinary authority that he has perused the relevant records before passing the order of dismissal but it does not appear that he has applied his mind. From the minutes of the Board of Directors also it does not appear that there was application of mind. 6. Though it appears from the order dated 10.6.1998 (Annexure 6) passed by the disciplinary authority that he has perused the relevant records before passing the order of dismissal but it does not appear that he has applied his mind. From the minutes of the Board of Directors also it does not appear that there was application of mind. It is true that an authority while affirming the findings need not repeat the reasons in detail but it should appear from the order that there has been application of mind. At least one of the said orders should have shown application of mind. 7. In the circumstance, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 for passing a reasoned order considering the show cause/ objection against enquiry report, in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of this order. As the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority, the decision of the Board of Directors is set aside. However, the order dated 10.6.1998 passed by the disciplinary authority will be kept in abeyance till an order is passed, as per this order. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.