JUDGMENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.D. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. BHANGALE 15/03/2011 For the Petitioner: M.M. Sudame, Advocate. For the Respondents: N.W. Almelkar, Advocate. WRIT PETITION NO.341 OF 2011 Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade Versus The Chairman Board of Director's Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Others JUDGMENT: (D.D. SINHA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the respective counsel. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Board of Directors in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.9.2010 whereby the petitioner was removed from the service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board (Appellate Authority) is without any reasons and, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in law. Similarly, the petitioner was not given personal hearing by the Board before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. Page 750: (Anil Amrut Atre vs. District & Sessions Judge). 4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the Board has discussed the pros and cons in detail before confirming the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors would show that all facets of the issue were considered by the Board and it is only thereafter the impugned order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority which is just and proper and the punishment awarded is also sustainable in law. 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that that the Board (Appellate Authority) passed the impugned order without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Similarly, the Board did not give any reasons for confirming the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, which is evident from 2nd paragraph of the impugned order which reads thus : “The Board has discussed the appeal in brief and not found any substance in your favour, in the appeal. Similarly, the Board did not give any reasons for confirming the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, which is evident from 2nd paragraph of the impugned order which reads thus : “The Board has discussed the appeal in brief and not found any substance in your favour, in the appeal. As such the Board of Directors has turned down the same on the ground that there is no any new thing brought to the Board to consider the appeal.” 6. The impugned order, therefore, on the face of it, shows that it is without reasons and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the members of the Board of Directors have discussed the issue in details in the meeting held for deciding the appeal of the petitioner cannot justify the passing of the cryptic order without giving any reasons. It is equally well settled that the reasons must be reflected in the order of the Appellate Authority itself and the same cannot be demonstrated by filing an affidavit before the Court. In view of the decision of the Full Bench (supra) based on the decision of the Apex Court the expression “consider” includes within its sweep the application of mind, personal hearing and records of reasons. It is, therefore, obligatory on the part of appellate authority to apply its mind and to pass an appropriate speaking order after affording personal hearing to the delinquent. 7. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Board of Directors is hereby quashed and set aside. It is open for the respondents to reconsider the appeal and to take a decision by following the principles of natural justice, within a period of three months, by passing a reasoned order. 9. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to cost.