JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):-The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner on 25.2.1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 25.2.1999. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 19.7.1999. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision/review petition before the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation. He rejected the same vide office order dated 6.2.2001. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that neither the office order dated 19.7.1999, nor the office order dated 6.2.2001 are self-contained, speaking and reasoned. He then contended that the orders passed by the competent authorities shows non-application of mind. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has supported the orders dated 19.7.1999 and 6.2.2001. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 3. A bare perusal of Annexure A-13 dated 19.7.1999 and Annexure A-15 dated 6.2.2001 reveal that these are neither self-contained nor reasoned. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Revising Authority must be self-contained and speaking. These orders must show due application of mind. These orders are appealable before the competent Courts of law. 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others, 2009 (1) Scale, 284 have held as under:- “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority is not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The material brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceedings, but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently was not supported by any evidence. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceedings, but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently was not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof.” 5. In chairman Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that though no detailed reasons may be necessary to be given by the Appellate Authority while affirming the order, however, some reasons should be assigned to show due application of mind. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-13, dated 19.7.1999 and Annexure A-15, dated 6.2.2001 are quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today. The Appellate Authority shall hear the petitioner in person. It will be open to the petitioner to produce any additional material before the Appellate Authority which can improve his case. No costs.