Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent, dated 03.09.2007, whereby his memorial petition filed challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Executive Engineer, Tenkasi, was rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Accounts Assistant in Revenue Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tenkasi. He was issued with a charge memo on 25.05.2005 alleging that there was theft of electricity at S.C.No.154 belong to the petitioner's wife and that the petitioner had indulged in money lending business within the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board premises at Tenkasi. Consequent upon the petitioner's denial of those charges, an enquiry was conducted and a report was also submitted. Further, by an order dated 30.08.2005, the third respondent passed an order of punishment with stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Further, an appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent was dismissed on 14.12.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed, by an order, dated 03.09.2007. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner was charged for the theft of electricity in S.C.No.154 and the petitioner's wife also remitted the compounding charges of Rs.53,511/-. Therefore, the petitioner was dishonest to the Board's property. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was also running money lending business within the premises of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and such activity of the petitioner is in violation of the Board rules. After observing all the formalities in the disciplinary proceedings, final orders were passed against the petitioner imposing him a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent against the order of punishment and the same was rejected on 14.12.2005 as no valid reason was given by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a memorial petition before the first respondent and the same was also rightly rejected on 03.09.2007 as there is no valid reason given by the petitioner in the memorial petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be punished, even by going through the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a memorial petition before the first respondent and the same was also rightly rejected on 03.09.2007 as there is no valid reason given by the petitioner in the memorial petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be punished, even by going through the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He has also drawn my attention in the said report with regard to various questions and answers given by the witnesses during the time of enquiry. However, even without going into any other merits of the matter, I propose to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the first respondent, only on the reason that both the authorities have not applied their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the order of punishment. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the second respondent, being the appellate authority, only shows that he has not considered any of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the other hand, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by mechanically saying that the same is devoid of merits. In my considered view, such one line order cannot be passed by an appellate authority, who is also a fact finding authority. When an appeal is filed against the order of punishment, the appellate authority is to necessarily go into all the facts and circumstances and apply his mind independently to the charges framed against the petitioner as well as the conclusion arrived by the punishing authority. The order, dated 14.12.2005, passed by the second respondent who is an appellate authority, only indicates that such exercise is totally absent. Likewise, the order passed by the first respondent dated 03.09.2007, also in the same line as passed by the second respondent, except by saying that there is no valid reason. The first respondent did not consider any of the merits of the matter, by applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I am of the view that both the authorities have failed to apply their mind and passed mechanical orders without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside on the simple reason that they have been passed without application of mind. Therefore, I am of the view that both the authorities have failed to apply their mind and passed mechanical orders without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside on the simple reason that they have been passed without application of mind. Consequently, the orders passed by the second respondent dated 14.12.2005 and the first respondent dated 03.09.2007 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, by applying his mind independently to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the grounds raised by the petitioner. The second respondent shall pass orders on appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the second respondent will certainly give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.