Judgment :- The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of the second respondent culminated in and by his proceedings HDC/Rc.1758/99 G1 dated 5. 2002 as confirmed by the first respondent in and by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1758/99 G1 dated 24. 2003 and quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The writ petitioner was working as Manager in the Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Corporation. One Muthupalani was working as Loan Inspector. During the period 1993-1999. It appears that the said Muthupalani while collecting the outstanding amount misappropriated the money and failed to deposit the said amount to the account of the respondent corporation. The petitioner, the Branch Manager and a senior officer is stated to be negligent in dealing with the said subordinate employee. According to the respondent corporation, petitioner should have taken reasonable care and caution and supervised the work of the said Muthupalani. If the petitioner was vigilant, the embezzlement or misappropriation of the amount by Thiru Muthupalani would have come to light much earlier and avoided the loss to the respondent corporation. According to the respondent corporation, the said Muthupalani had embezzled a sum of Rs.10.45 lakhs and after realising some amount, Rs.4.01 lakhs was pending recovery. There is also loss of interest. Based on the above, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and on completion of enquiry, he was imposed with punishment of one year increment cut without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as earned leave. The above said punishment was imposed on 22. 2000. Thereafter, the Board reviewed the punishment and by proceedings dated 29. 2001, the order dated 22. 2000 imposing the punishment as above, was revoked. The enquiry was done de novo. Petitioner participated in the de novo enquiry. The charges were found to be proved in the de novo proceedings and the second show-cause notice was issued with regard to punishment to be imposed. An explanation was given by the petitioner. The Chairman of the respondent Corporation by proceedings in HDC/Rc.1758/99/G1 dated 5. 2002 imposed punishment of removal from service. As against the order dated 5. 2002, petitioner filed appeal dated 6. 2002 to the Secretary, The Staff Committee, Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Corporation. The said appeal was rejected by a Resolution No.2832 dated 33. The Chairman of the respondent Corporation by proceedings in HDC/Rc.1758/99/G1 dated 5. 2002 imposed punishment of removal from service. As against the order dated 5. 2002, petitioner filed appeal dated 6. 2002 to the Secretary, The Staff Committee, Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Corporation. The said appeal was rejected by a Resolution No.2832 dated 33. 2003 and the same was informed by a letter dated 24. 2003. 3. Challenging the said communication dated 24. 2003, present writ petition has been filed inter alia contending as follows:- .(i) The amount was misappropriated by one Muthupalani and not by the petitioner. .(ii) The amount misappropriated which remains unpaid after recovery is Rs.4,01,827.45 and the interest amount is Rs.2,82,048.93 in all Rs.6,83,8738. According to the petitioner, the subordinate officer Muthupalani has paid a sum of Rs.5.35 lakhs which amount has to be deducted from the total liability. If the amount repaid is taken into consideration, the loss caused by the subordinate officer is meagre. (iii) There is no allegation that the amount was misappropriated by the petitioner and that the petitioner had knowledge of the same. .(iv) On the first occasion, the Managing Director imposed the punishment of one year increment cut without cumulative effect, whereas on the second round, the extremely harsh punishment of removal from service was passed. The punishment imposed by the authority for the delinquency charged is shockingly disproportionate. .(v) The further grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Staff Regulation, the appeal should be decided by the Staff Committee of the Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Corporation and not by the Board. Therefore, there is an infirmity in the appeal proceedings. .(vi) The delinquency charged is between 1993 to 2000 and the petitioner was working as Manager only for a period of eight months in the year 1999-2000. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the principles of natural justice have been scrupulously followed. The enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the delinquency charged and therefore, the punishment of removal from service finding that the petitioner failed to take proper care and caution and supervise the subordinate officer, does not require reconsideration. 5. The enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the delinquency charged and therefore, the punishment of removal from service finding that the petitioner failed to take proper care and caution and supervise the subordinate officer, does not require reconsideration. 5. As regards the plea that the appeal should not have been decided by the Board, it is contended that the Board has got power as revisional authority to deal with any order or proceedings passed by the lower authority. The appeal though filed before the Staff Committee was taken up by the Board and rejected on 33. 2003 and communicated by proceedings dated 24. 2003 by the Chairman. The Resolution of the Board dated 33. 2003 was also annexed with the communication dated 24. 2003 which is under challenge. Hence, there is no infirmity as alleged. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the ground that the subordinate officer has accepted his guilt and paid most of amount. There is no charge of misappropriation by the petitioner. Therefore, the only delinquency as against the petitioner is that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to supervise the Loan Inspector from time to time. This according to the petitioner is due to heavy workload and the details of accounting is usually taken up at every quarter. In any event his tenure as Manager to control the Line Inspector Thiru Muthupalani was only a short period. Apparently, the Board while considering the case of the petitioner has merely stated that the appeal petition dated 6. 2002 was considered and rejected and the recovery order has been passed. There appears to be no application of mind to the various issues raised by the petitioner in appeal and the proceedings of the Board is cryptic and bereft of reasons. 7. In S.N. Mukherjee vs. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594 the Apex Court held in para 36 as follows:- "36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage." 8. The Board while deciding the case of the petitioner, apparently has not given any reason as to why the appeal is rejected and whether it has a power to review the order of the lower authority or to exercise the power of appellate jurisdiction. Recording of reasons is a sine quinine for application of mind. In this case, the appeal has been rejected summarily. For that reason, the Court is of the view that the order dated 24. 2003 enclosing the Boards proceedings stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board or the Appellate Authority as to case may be to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in person. The proceedings to be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is entitled to submit further representation in support of the appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part. No costs.