JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai, J. We have heard Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Niraj Pathak, learned AGP for the respondent-State. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken this appeal for final disposal. The Appellant was working as Guardsman and was on duty at Guard point No. 4, JIC, Bhuj. On 27.5.2002 one Bangladeshi citizen tried to flee away from the JIC with the help of the petitioner and two other Home Guards for which Bhuj police started necessary inquiries. In the inquiry proceedings the petitioner was found guilty and negligent in carrying out the duties assigned to him. The appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 7.8.2002 from No. 3 Battalion, Border Wing, Homeguard on the ground of carelessness in duty as per section 6B of the Bombay Guards Act, 1947. The appellant filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 4.8.2003. The appellant challenged the dismissal as well as the appellate order by filing Special Civil Application No. 1907 of 2004. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition was that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal by unreasoned order. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 3.12.2004 dismissed the Special Civil Application. It is this order which has been challenged in this Appeal. 3. Apart from other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, he has vehemently urged that the Appellate Authority has not at all applied its mind to the facts of the case and has passed a non-speaking order. He has urged that the Appellate Authority was required to deliberate upon the points raised by the appellant in the appeal. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. v. Madhusudan Rao 2008 AIR SCW 1365. In para 19 the Apex Court held as below : "It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum." From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that while writing or affirming the views, detailed reasons are not required to be given but even brief reasons given by the Appellate Authority would be sufficient to let the delinquent officer know as to why his appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 4.8.2003 which is extracted below : "In connection to above subject it is mentioned that regarding an application made in reference to above, your application is rejected as "Mildness cannot be shown in such a serious matter". Whether strong or mild action is taken by the Appellate Authority may be one thing but the reasons for dismissing the Appeal is to be based on facts though the reason may be in brief. This having not been done, the order of the Appellate Authority was prima facie, illegal. The learned Single Judge did not advert to this question. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge cannot be maintained. 4. In the result, this Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.12.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1907 of 2004 and the appellate order dated 4.8.2003 filed at Annexure "E" to the Special Civil Application are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh expeditiously. Appeal allowed.