Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in C.No.B2/23821/2009 dated 7.6.2010 and the order of the second respondent passed in P.R.No.15 of 2000 dated 31.10.2000 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner as Head Constable on par with his juniors. 2. Heard Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.M. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Armed Reserve Force at Nagapattinam District on 25.10.1984 and he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1997. He was issued with a charge memo by the second respondent for demanding money. Against which an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found that as against three charges, one charge was proved in relation to the allegation of demand of illegal gratification. 4. After the enquiry, an order was passed by the Enquiry Officer imposing punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect by proceedings dated 7.6.2010. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the Appellate Authority without assigning any reason, confirmed the original order on 19.1.2001. The petitioner preferred a review and the same was also rejected by an order dated 8.10.2002. Challenging that the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.28755 of 2004 and this Court by an order dated 13.3.2009, set aside the above two orders dated 8.10.2002 and 19.1.2001 of the reviewing authority and the appellate authority and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur to pass appropriate orders giving reasons thereof. 5. By an order dated 7.6.2010, the present impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, confirming the punishment. A perusal of the impugned orders dated 7.6.2010 and 31.10.2000 issued by the respondents herein, clearly show that the orders are non-speaking one. Since earlier, this Court has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to decide afresh, as there are no clear reasons given by the original authority, the appellate authority ought to have given a detailed order before rejecting the appeal. Since earlier, this Court has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to decide afresh, as there are no clear reasons given by the original authority, the appellate authority ought to have given a detailed order before rejecting the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 1991 (1) LLN (Vol.38) SC 557 {S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India}, in para 35 of the said judgment, held as follows:- “35. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ... The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” 6. If the original authority has given the reasons in detail for imposing the punishment and if the appellate authority is going to affirm the said punishment of the original authority, there is no need for the appellate authority to give reasons. In this case, the original authority has not given any reason and that is the reason why in the earlier litigation, the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh reasoned order by considering the grievance of the petitioner. 7. Unfortunately, there is no reason given in the appellate order again. The petitioner has been forced to approach this Court time and again to vindicate his grievance and it has not been resolved by the appellate authority in terms of the earlier order of this Court passed in W.P.No.28755 of 2004 dated 13.3.2009. Though I am not inclined to remit the matter back to the appellate authority and wants to allow the writ petition straightaway, since the writ petitioner is a police personnel and charges appears to be serious in nature, I am of the opinion that one more opportunity could be given to the appellate authority to pass a detailed reasoned order, on merits, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. This Court expect that similar mistake does not arise henceforth by the appellate authority. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.