ORDER : The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Corporation Bank, was served with articles of charge, statement of imputations of misconduct, list of documents and witnesses and subjected to a disciplinary proceeding. The Enquiry Officer appointed having submitted the report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved and a copy thereof made available to the petitioner along with a show cause notice, statement of objections was filed. The Disciplinary Authority (for short ‘DA’) having passed an order for removal from service of the Bank, an appeal was presented, under Regulation 17 of the Corporation Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 (for short ‘the Regulations’). The Appellate Authority (for short ‘AA’) having dismissed the appeal, this writ petition was filed assailing the orders passed by the DA and the AA vide Annexures – J and L respectively. 2. Sri B. Ramesh, learned advocate contended that the appeal having not been considered in accordance with sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 17 the order passed vide Annexure-L is bad. He submitted that the appeal being a substantive remedy and there being failure of the AA to consider the matter in accordance with law and the order passed being vitiated, there is need for interference. He further submitted that the appeal being a comprehensive remedy is required to be considered both on questions of law and fact by keeping in view the scope of sub-Regulation (4), which is mandatory. Learned counsel sought quashing of the order as at Annexure-L and remanding of the case by contending that the AA who has been empowered to decide the matter comprehensively should decide the case with reference to the various grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and to be urged for consideration at the time of hearing. 3. Per contra, Sri Abhilash Raju, learned advocate took me through the statement of objections filed in the writ petition and the orders passed by the DA / AA and contended that the order of removal passed against the petitioner being with reference to the record of enquiry, the AA having concurred with the finding recorded by the DA and the orders as at Annexures – J and L being justified, no interference is called for. 4. 4. Even though, learned advocates adverted to the respective stand taken by them in the pleading of the parties, I deem it just to decide this petition on a short legal ground, whether the order passed vide Annexure-L by the AA suffers from any legal infirmity? 5. The Regulations contain the provisions in the matters relating to disciplinary control of the Officer employees of the Bank. Regulation 17 provides for appeals against the orders imposing upon the Officer employee any of the penalty specified in Regulation 4 or against the order of suspension referred to in Regulation 12. Regulation 17 being relevant is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “17. Appeals: (1) An officer employee may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority within forty five days from the date of receipt of the order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 or against the order of suspension referred to in regulation 12: Provided that the Appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time. (2) The appeal shall be presented to the Appellate authority with a copy being forwarded by the appellant to the authority which made the order appealed against. It shall contain all material statements and arguments on which the appellant relies but shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language, and shall be complete in itself. (3) The authority which made the order appealed against shall, on receipt of a copy of the appeal from the appellant, forward the same with its comments thereon together with the relevant records to the Appellate authority within a period not exceeding forty five days from the date of the receipt of the appeal. (4) The Appellate authority shall on receipt of the comments and records of the case from the authority whose order is appealed against, consider whether the order of suspension/findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty/suspension or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The Appellate authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty/suspension or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Provided that : (i) If the enhanced penalty, which the Appellate authority proposed to impose is a major penalty specified in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) of regulation 4 and an inquiry as provided in regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Appellate authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the inquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper. (ii) If the Appellate authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held as provided in Regulation 6, the Appellate authority shall give a show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee. (5) The Appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of ninety days from the date of its receipt from the appellant: Provided that the limit specified in this regulation shall not apply to cases having a vigilance angle and where major/minor penalty proceedings against the officer employee have commenced or recommendations of the Police or Central Bureau of Investigation or Central Vigilance Commission, as the case may be, investigating the matter. (6) The cases lying pending over ninety days shall be reviewed periodically by the Appellate authority and reasons for non-disposal of the cases shall be recorded in writing.” (underlining is by me) 6. The AA, while passing the order as at Annexure-L has extracted in para 2(a) to (d), the charges leveled against the petitioner. In para 3 has summarized the grounds raised in the appeal memo. In para 4 has summarized the report dated 17.11.2008 of the Enquiry Authority and in para 5 has concluded as follows: “5. The aforesaid lapses on the part of the appellant are serious in nature. In para 3 has summarized the grounds raised in the appeal memo. In para 4 has summarized the report dated 17.11.2008 of the Enquiry Authority and in para 5 has concluded as follows: “5. The aforesaid lapses on the part of the appellant are serious in nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the proven misconduct of appellant, the Disciplinary Authority has passed appropriate orders dated 31.12.2008 imposing the major penalty of removal of the appellant from the service of the Bank which shall not be a disqualification for her future employment. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal submitted by the appellant is devoid of merits. Accordingly, appeal is rejected and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is upheld.” 7. From a reading of sub-Regulation (4), extracted supra, it is clear that AA while deciding the appeal should consider; (i) whether the order of suspension/findings are justified? (ii) whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders? The AA has been empowered to pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty/suspension or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 8. The AA, if he is in agreement with that of the finding entered by the DA need not pass a detailed order. However, the AA, passing the order must show that there had been proper application of mind on his part regarding compliance of the requirement of the Regulation No.17. Having regard to the nature of power conferred on the AA, extracted supra, it is clear that when an appeal is presented, the authority can re-appreciate the evidence and come to his own conclusion. The appeal being continuation of the original proceeding and the AA being obligated to consider whether the impugned findings are justified is required to re-appreciate the evidence placed on record of the enquiry. The appeal cannot be decided in a flip flop manner as the regulation casts mandatory duty on the AA to consider the appeal specifically in terms of the provision made under sub-Regulation (4). 9. In the present case the order as at Annexure-L being cryptic, makes clear that there is non-application of mind. The appeal cannot be decided in a flip flop manner as the regulation casts mandatory duty on the AA to consider the appeal specifically in terms of the provision made under sub-Regulation (4). 9. In the present case the order as at Annexure-L being cryptic, makes clear that there is non-application of mind. Having regard to the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum as at Annexure-K, the AA ought to have considered the same. Consideration cannot be mechanical but there should be application of mind to the relevant aspects, which is not the case herein. The expression consider is of material significance. The order passed by the AA vide Annexure-L does not show the consideration of the appeal filed vide Annexure-K in accordance with law, regard being had to the mandate of sub-Regulation (4). 10. In the case of R.P. Bhat vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1040 , Apex Court has held that the word “consider” implies a “due application of mind”. While interpreting Rule 27(2) of CCS (CC and A) Rules, 1965, which came up for consideration therein, it has been held that the same casts a duty on the AA to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. 11. In the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1173 , Apex Court while interpreting sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, has held as follows: “5. To say the least, this is just a mechanical reproduction of the phraseology of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules without any attempt on the part of the Railway Board either to marshal the evidence on record with a view to decide whether the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority could be sustained or not. There is also no indication that the Railway Board applied its mind as to whether the act of misconduct with which the appellant was charged together with the attendant circumstances and the past record of the appellant were such that he should have been visited with the extreme penalty of removal from service for a single lapse in a span of 24 years of service. Dismissal or removal from service is a matter of grave concern to a civil servant who after such a long period of service, may not deserve such a harsh punishment. Dismissal or removal from service is a matter of grave concern to a civil servant who after such a long period of service, may not deserve such a harsh punishment. There being noncompliance with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules, the impugned order passed by the Railway Board is liable to be set aside.” "9. These authorities proceed upon the principle that in the absence of a requirement in the statute or the rules, there is no duty cast on an ‘AA’ to give reasons where the order is one of affirmance. Here, Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules in express terms requires the Railway Board to record its findings on the three aspects stated therein. Similar are the requirements under Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Rule 22(2) provides that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the ‘AA’ shall ‘consider’ as to the matters indicated therein. The word ‘consider’ has different shades of meaning and must in Rule 22(2), in the context in which it appears, mean an objective consideration by the Railway Board after due application of mind which implies the giving of reasons for its decision.” (Emphasis supplied by me) The contention urged by Sri B. Ramesh, learned advocate that the order as at Annexure-L passed by the AA is not a considered order is well founded. 12. Lack of application of mind on the part of the AA in terms of Regulation 17(4) being apparent and the departmental proceeding being quasi criminal in nature, there being no consideration of the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid regulation, the order as at Annexure-L suffers from vice of non-application of mind to the material grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and hence, the impugned order – Annexure-L is required to be held as arbitrary. The said order is bald, cryptic and cannot be termed as a considered order, as there is mere narration and abrupt conclusion, without any kind of appreciation of the record. There being disregard of the mandatory requirement of Regulation 17(4), the order at Annexure-L is nothing but a mechanical exercise. The said order is bald, cryptic and cannot be termed as a considered order, as there is mere narration and abrupt conclusion, without any kind of appreciation of the record. There being disregard of the mandatory requirement of Regulation 17(4), the order at Annexure-L is nothing but a mechanical exercise. As the grounds raised in Annexure-K has not been considered in accordance with law and the order at Annexure-L being vitiated, it is ordered as follows: Writ petition is allowed in part and the order as at Annexure-L passed by the AA is quashed. As the appeal has not been decided in accordance with law, AA shall consider the same afresh by keeping in view the observations made supra. The appeal shall be decided within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order becomes available to the respondents. No costs.