JUDGMENT : B.R.SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who was working as sectional supervisor under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited and after rendering 35 years of service took retirement on exercising option under the VRS Scheme on 28.02.2007, has filed this writ application seeking for following reliefs: “In the facts and circumstances of the case it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to issue a rule nisi calling upon the O.Ps. to show cause as to why the deduction of Rs.1,41,557/-from the V.R.S. dues of the petitioner as per Annexure-5, and the recommendations of the triangular committee for such deduction as per Annexure-4 shall not be quashed and why the O.Ps. shall not be directed to release the said deducted amount to the petitioner forthwith. And if the O.Ps. show no cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to make the rule absolute and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. The factual matrix of the case is that after retirement on VRS the petitioner received a letter/notice dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure-1) issued by opposite party no.2 calling upon him to show cause as to why the amount found to be recoverable on review of the internal audit paras shall not be recovered from his VRS dues. The deduction sought to be made, as shown in Annexure-1, relates to shortages in sawn firewood out turn after sawing of timbers in Cuttack Saw Mill of the opposite party corporation during the year 1991-92, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 to the tune of Rs.2,62,703.61. On receipt of such notice dated 20.07.2007, the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.07.2007 (Annexure-2) pointing out that as a matter of fact monthly basis reports were used to be submitted on the actual production of sawn sizes, sawn firewood, etc., but never any shrinkage or shortage was pointed out by any higher authority. The petitioner explained each of the internal audit report paras to show that the proposed recovery after so many years was unjustified and without any substance and claimed that he may be exonerated from deduction of any amount from his VRS dues. 3. On submission of reply by the petitioner, opposite party no.1 called for further clarification on the audit objections from opposite party no.2. 3. On submission of reply by the petitioner, opposite party no.1 called for further clarification on the audit objections from opposite party no.2. On 17.12.2007, opposite party no.2, on verification of materials pertaining to the shortages, vide Annexure-3 suggested to drop the main allegations of shortages relating to item nos.4, 5 and 6 contained in Annexure-1. After submission clarifications and suggestions of opposite party no.2 in Annexure-3, a triangular committee deliberated over the matter in its meeting dated 31.01.2008 and vide its minutes (Annexure-4) recommended for recovery/deduction of total amount of Rs.1,41,557.00 from the petitioner on the basis of the letter/notice under Annexure-1. As per the recommendation of the triangular committee, an amount of Rs.1,41,557.00 was deducted from VRS dues of the petitioner. Thereby, from VRS dues of Rs.2,69,900.00 after deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,41,557.00, the balance amount of Rs.1,28,343.00 has been paid. On receipt of the said amount, the petitioner preferred appeal on 19.05.2008 before opposite party no.1 for re-consideration of the matter. But, the same was rejected by opposite party no.1 vide his letter dated 19.07.2008 (Annexure-7). Hence, this writ application. 4. Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner, who was working as sectional supervisor under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited submitted his application for V.R.S. which had been considered by the authority and permitted to avail such benefit w.e.f. 28.02.2007. While paying the V.R.S. dues, a substantial amount of Rs.1,41,557/-has been deducted on the basis of an internal audit paras without initiating any proceeding determining the liability as contemplated under the provisions of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to “Rules, 1986”). It is further contended that recovery from the pay of the petitioner is wholly unjustified and without jurisdiction which caused loss to him. The authority, who has imposed minor penalty pursuant to the recommendation of triangular committee is not competent to impose such penalty as per the procedure envisaged under the Rules. Though the petitioner preferred appeal challenging the recommendation of the triangular committee, the appellate authority-Managing Director on 19.07.2008 passed the cryptic order simply stating the appeal is rejected without assigning any reason. 5. Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation per contra submitted that the procedure, as envisaged under Rule-125 for imposing minor penalty, has been followed. Though the petitioner preferred appeal challenging the recommendation of the triangular committee, the appellate authority-Managing Director on 19.07.2008 passed the cryptic order simply stating the appeal is rejected without assigning any reason. 5. Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation per contra submitted that the procedure, as envisaged under Rule-125 for imposing minor penalty, has been followed. In compliance of the same, the petitioner was called upon to submit explanation vide Annexure-1 with regard to short fall of the amount. The petitioner has complied by submitting his explanation vide Annexure-2 in detail stating that at no point of time he has caused loss to the corporation and he is not liable for shortage of sawn firewood pursuant to the audit report. In any case, vide Annexure-E dated 14.05.2008, the petitioner has given undertaking that he is agreeable to deduct the outstanding dues which would be found against him and would be recovered from him/his V.R.S dues and the OFDC would not be held responsible for the same. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authority by deducting the aforesaid amount from the V.R.S dues. It is further stated that the petitioner having been given opportunity in consonance with Rule-125 of the Rules 1986, the claim made by the petitioner subsequently by filing this writ petition cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the order passed by the authority does not warrant interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with their consent. 7. On perusal of the provisions contained in Orissa Forest Development Corporation Service Rules, 1986, it is seen that Rule 121 deals with “penalty” and clause (iv) of Rule 121 deals with recovery from pay, which has been categorized as “minor penalty”. For imposition of “minor penalty”, procedure has been envisaged under Rule-125 of Rules, 1986. For better appreciation Rule 125 is quoted below: “Rule 125 – Procedure for imposing minor penalty. 1. For imposition of “minor penalty”, procedure has been envisaged under Rule-125 of Rules, 1986. For better appreciation Rule 125 is quoted below: “Rule 125 – Procedure for imposing minor penalty. 1. No order imposing any of the minor penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Rule-121 shall be imposed except after- (a) The employee/workman is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make within a time limit as may be specified: (b) Such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. 2. The record of proceedings in such cases shall include:- (i) a copy of the intimation to the employee/workman of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of allegation communicated to him; (iii) his representation, if any, and (iv) the orders on the case together with the reasons thereof. NOTE: 1. No oral enquiry is necessary where the punishment proposed is a minor one. 2. Where two or more employees/workman are concerned in any case, the authority empowered to impose the penalty on all such employees/workmen may make an order directing that the disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in any common proceeding." 8. Keeping in view the above mentioned provisions contained in Rules, 1986 the case has been dealt with on the basis of the facts available on record. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner was working under the opposite party-Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited as sectional supervisor and he availed V.R.S. by exercising his option on 28.02.2007. Opposite party-authority considered his application and before V.R.S. was granted show-cause notice under Annexure-1 was issued, to which the petitioner gave his reply vide Annexure-2. After consideration of the same, the order impugned has been passed by the triangular committee showing that a sum of Rs.1,41,557/-is due to recover from the V.R.S. amount. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner in Annexure-E, the amount in question has been deducted from his V.R.S. dues and the balance dues have been paid, which has been accepted by the petitioner without any protest. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner in Annexure-E, the amount in question has been deducted from his V.R.S. dues and the balance dues have been paid, which has been accepted by the petitioner without any protest. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal and the appellate authority under Annexure-7 dated 19.07.2008 by a cryptic order rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason. Franz Schubert said- “Reason is nothing but analysis of belief.” In Black’s Law Dictionary, reason has been defined as a- “faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from facts or from propositions.” It means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for what they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 it has been held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 . Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the appellate authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference to those given by the original authority. 9. On perusal of the impugned order in Annexure-7, the appellate authority appears to have passed a cryptic order simply stating appeal is rejected, without assigning any reason. 9. On perusal of the impugned order in Annexure-7, the appellate authority appears to have passed a cryptic order simply stating appeal is rejected, without assigning any reason. Consequentially, the order dated 19.07.2008 in Annexure-7 passed by the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the said authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed.