JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order of punishment of demotion as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Tradesman by the respondents in 1987 at Palani Depot. After working for a period of six years and appreciating his performance, the respondents granted the petitioner the post of Assistant Tradesman with higher scale of pay. While that being so, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 18.07.2001 based on an audit inspection. It was alleged that there was a shortage of 1,649 litres of diesel to the value of Rs.29,946/-. After placing the petitioner under suspension, an enquiry was conducted and consequently, an order of demotion was passed on 11.03.2002 thereby demoting the petitioner as Junior Tradesman with initial scale of pay and also for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,968/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal through his order dated 10.07.2002. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that two other persons were also issued with charge memo along with the petitioner but no major punishment was imposed on them except ordering two increments cut. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that apart form the merits of the matter, the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner also suffers on the ground of discrimination. 4. The above writ petition is resisted by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit. 5. I have perused the materials placed before the court and also considered the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The petitioner was imposed with punishment of demotion through the order of the original Authority dated 11.03.2002. Aggrieved against the same, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. But, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would show that he has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case at all and on the other hand, he has passed the order mechanically by stating that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the original authority. 7. But, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would show that he has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case at all and on the other hand, he has passed the order mechanically by stating that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the original authority. 7. Needless to say that the Appellate Authority also being the fact finding Authority, has to necessarily go into the facts and circumstances of the case and give his own independent finding as to whether the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner by the original Authority is sustainable or not. On the other hand, the Appellate Authority has simply stated that there are no reasons to interfere with the order of the original authority. Except saying so, no other discussions or reasons are found in the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable on the sole reason that it appears to be an outcome of non application of mind resulting in a non-speaking order. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.07.2002 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority viz., the first respondent for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law and to pass a detailed order afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds which he raised in this writ petition before the Appellate Authority and it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the same and pass orders as stated supra. With these observation, the writ petition is allowed in part, by setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remitting the matter back to him for fresh consideration as stated supra. It is further made clear that the petitioner should furnish his fresh grounds, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such grounds, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal within two months thereafter. No costs.