JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that in scaling down the order of punishment after concurrent findings of guilt as rendered by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority did not give any satisfactory reasons therefor. 2. Though reasons form a facet of natural justice in the sense that reasons inform the persons affected by a judicial or quasi judicial order as to what weighed against or in favour of such person in course of the adjudication or assessment, they are not indispensable in every circumstance. For instance, when a superior authority considers the reasons given by an inferior authority, the entirety of the reasons need not be repeated in concurring therewith as long as the independent application of the mind of the superior authority to the matters in issue is reflected in the relevant order. 3. Since the appellate authority concurred, in this case, with the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, elaborate reasons in support thereof were not required to be furnished. The petitioner has not questioned the appellate authority's concurrence with the findings as to the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner only questions the order of punishment which has been passed by the appellate order without indicating any reasons. 4. The disciplinary authority had imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. Such fine has been realized. The appellate order noticed such fact. The appellate authority also noticed that the petitioner had been reduced to the master rolls by the order of punishment. The appellate authority modified such part of the order of punishment to the benefit of the petitioner by restoring the petitioner to his original cadre. It was open to the appellate authority to restore the petitioner to the cadre as if he had never been demoted therefrom or to restore the petitioner to his original cadre prospectively. In the appellate authority providing for the restoration of the petitioner to his original cadre without arrears benefits, the appellate authority has only restored the petitioner's position prospectively. It was within the authority of the appellate forum to pass such order. 5. When an order of such nature is passed by an appellate authority by marginally tinkering with the order of punishment, detailed or specific reasons need not be furnished in every case. It was within the authority of the appellate forum to pass such order. 5. When an order of such nature is passed by an appellate authority by marginally tinkering with the order of punishment, detailed or specific reasons need not be furnished in every case. Since the petitioner here is the beneficiary of the lenient view taken by the appellate authority, that the appellate authority observed in its previous sentence that had a satisfactory record should not prompt the petitioner to tempt fate and require the entirety of the appellate order to be set aside and the matter to be considered afresh. 6. Since the appellate authority's order in modifying the order of punishment appears to be within the bounds of discretion available to the appellate authority by virtue of its position, the same does not call for any interference. 7. WP 5116(W) of 2015 is dismissed. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.