Judgment Petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Memorandum dated 17.12.2003, under letter No. Memo/94/2003-04, issued by the Respondent-Disciplinary Authority of the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka whereby the petitioner has been visited with a punishment of lowering his scale of pay to the initial stage of his substantive salary and has also been debarred from the privilege of the usual increments for a period of three years. The petitioner has raised several grounds stating, inter alia, that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice in as much as the grounds of defence as raised by the petitioner, the relevant documents and the evidences sought to be adduced by the petitioner, was not considered in detail either by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. It is further contended that the appellate authority has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without application of mind in upholding the recommendations of the disciplinary authority. The further contention of the petitioner is that even otherwise, for causing alleged loss to the Bank of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-by way of grant of loan, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate and too severe and that too without adhering to the procedures laid down. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents-Bank in which it is sought to be explained that the grounds advanced by the petitioner, have no merit. It is explained that the departmental proceedings was conducted in a fair, judicious and balanced manner by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to participate and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate to his guilt, considering the fact that he being a Bank employee, was required to demonstrate a greater sense of integrity in dealing with the public money. From the perusal of the impugned order of the appellate authority (Annexure-12), it certainly appears that it is a cryptic and nonspeaking order. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal have not been adverted to, nor does it appear to have been discussed at all. Such an order cannot be allowed to sustain, as it amounts to a perverse order and not in accordance with principles of natural justice. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal have not been adverted to, nor does it appear to have been discussed at all. Such an order cannot be allowed to sustain, as it amounts to a perverse order and not in accordance with principles of natural justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order (Annexure-12) of the appellate authority, the petitioner’s case is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order adverting to all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his memorandum of appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority may give an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing in the appeal preferred against the order of the disciplinary authority. With the above observations, this writ application stands disposed of.