JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Railways, respondents in Original Application No. 231 of 2005, are aggrieved by the order dated 11th December, 2007 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Bench Sitting at Ranchi), whereunder it has quashed the order dated 26th March, 1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 24th September, 2004 passed by Appellate Authority imposing the punishment of removal from service and directed the applicant to be reinstated in service and proceed to pass orders in accordance with relevant Rules. 3. Applicant faced disciplinary proceeding under the memorandum of charges dated 21st September, 1993 (Annexure-5) on two allegations of misconduct. As per Article-I of the charge-sheet, applicant while functioning as Senior GAC in Booking Office during the period 10th April, 1993 issued one EET No. 135095 in which record foil shows BKRO to Telo II ordy Ticket fair Rs. 7/- but passenger foil of the same shows as MST ex. BKRO to PRME and back valid upto 9th May, 1993 for Rs. 102/- with ulterior motive and malafide intention to misappropriate the Government money. As per DFCS Book Rs. 7/- only was accounted for and rest amount Rs. 95/- was misappropriated for his personal gain. Article-II alleged that the applicant issued one LEFT No. 404311 on 3rd March, 1993 for Rs. 2/- in which the record foil shows BKRO to CRP II ordy. Ticket No. 8501 fair Rs. 2/-extended upto KTH though ticket for KTH was available on hand and as per stock book and DFCS book. But the passenger foil shows issuance of QST ex. BKRO to CRP and back valid upto 2nd June. 1993 for Rs. 195/- with ulterior motive and inalaflde intention to misappropriate the Government money. As per DTCS book Rs. 2/- only was accounted for and rest Rs. 193/- was misappropriated. Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Railway servant in contravention of Rule No. 3(1) (i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. 4. Applicant challenged the inquiry report through O.A. The departmental proceeding ended in the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 26.3.1997 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) passed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Divisional Commissioner Manger/Eastern Railway, Dhanbad. The order of Disciplinary Authority indicated that copy of inquiry report was supplied to him. 4. Applicant challenged the inquiry report through O.A. The departmental proceeding ended in the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 26.3.1997 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) passed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Divisional Commissioner Manger/Eastern Railway, Dhanbad. The order of Disciplinary Authority indicated that copy of inquiry report was supplied to him. Copy of Original Application No. 270 of 1998 has been brought on record by the petitioner herein through second supplementary affidavit dated 19th April, 2018. Para 1.1 containing the particulars of the orders against which the application is made, indicates that applicant was aggrieved by the inquiry report submitted by respondent No. 5 (Enquiry Officer) alleging that he had refused to furnish documents specifically demanded by the applicant and also took evidence behind his back and that opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses were not given. 5. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal decided the Original Application No. 270 of 1998 by order dated 10th March, 2004 (Annexure-1). Specific contention of the applicant that he was not supplied with the relevant documents, was rejected as per the findings at para 4 thereof. Learned Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice had been met as the copies of documents were supplied to him. Learned Tribunal however proceeded to hold that the appellate authority had passed an order, which was non-speaking and suffering from non-application of mind. As such the appellate order was quashed with a direction to the appellate authority to decide his appeal afresh by giving a personal hearing. The order passed by the appellate authority on 24th September, 2004 (Annexure-2) was under challenge in the instant O.A. No. 231 of 2005 by the applicant. The appellate authority by the speaking order dated 24th September. 2004 affirmed the findings of disciplinary authority. It recorded that in course of enquiry all the documents were exhibited in presence of PW 1 and PW 2 and Charged Officer. Therefore, the question of not supplying of relied upon documents to the C.O. does not arise. The appellate authority by the speaking order dated 24th September. 2004 affirmed the findings of disciplinary authority. It recorded that in course of enquiry all the documents were exhibited in presence of PW 1 and PW 2 and Charged Officer. Therefore, the question of not supplying of relied upon documents to the C.O. does not arise. At the time of exhibiting the passenger foil to the C.O., he had made up his mind and it was clear intention of the Charged Officer to destroy the EFT foils from the file because it is the only important document to prove the charges of-forgery against the C.O. The appellate authority recorded that the issue of missing and destroying the passenger foils from the file by the Charged Officer occurred during continuance of the inquiry in the Chamber of ACM. Enquiry Officer was called by Senior DCM and he went to his Chamber. After he returned and entered his Chamber PWs 1 and 2 were not there and only C.O. was coming out from Chamber. During inquiry ACM came to know that EFT foils were not there in the file. Since the Charged Officer was alone in the Chamber and he was knowing better that it is only important document to save him from the allegation alleged upon him, the appellate authority came to a finding that C.O. had taken the passenger EFT foils from the file in absence of E.O. and PWs. Xerox copies of EFT (Passenger Record and Accounts) foils available in the file proves that on the date of issue the EFT foils he was on duty and he had issued the EFT. Taking into account these facts and findings of Enquiry Officer, appellate authority did not find any scope to exonerate the Charged Officer/applicant of the charges. Therefore, it was held that he was thoroughly responsible for misappropriation of Government money with malafide intention. The appellate authority therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of removal. 6. In the order impugned dated 11th December, 2007, learned Central Administrative Tribunal, however, at para 5 referred to the statement of respondent-Railways in O.A. No. 270 of 1998 and came to the opinion that the applicant had not been supplied copy of the inquiry report. The order of disciplinary authority was mechanical, stereo-typed, cyclostyled and not a speaking one, therefore, it was not permissible in the eye of law. The order of disciplinary authority was mechanical, stereo-typed, cyclostyled and not a speaking one, therefore, it was not permissible in the eye of law. Learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded to quash the original order of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as well while directing his reinstatement. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the findings at para 5 of the learned Tribunal relating to non-supply of inquiry report is a complete error of record as would be evident from pleadings of Original Application No. 270 of 1998 annexed to the second supplementary affidavit and the findings recorded at para 4 in the order of learned Tribunal dated 10th Mach, 2004 passed in O.A. No. 270 of 1998. He further submits that learned Tribunal in the first O.A. remanded the matter to the appellate authority only for passing a fresh speaking order while not interfering with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. As such, the order passed by the disciplinary authority could not be made the subject-matter of challenge, once again if the applicant was aggrieved by the second order passed by the appellate authority on remand. He further submits that the order of appellate authority is well reasoned and needs no interference. The charges were duly proved against the delinquent employee during inquiry proceeding after compliance of principle of natural justice which stood affirmed in the order passed in the first O.A. by learned Tribunal. The charge, which was proved, related to misappropriation of Government money, where no leniency in imposing the penalty less than removal or dismissal from service could be conceived. The petitioner-Railways have imposed the penalty of removal instead of dismissal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant has supported the findings of learned Tribunal. He submits that the order passed by disciplinary authority was mechanical and suffered from non-application of mind. Learned counsel also refers to the statement of respondent made in the written statement in O.A. No. 270 of 1998 at para 23 that there was no question of supplying enquiry report along with any proposed punishment. He further submits that the findings of learned Tribunal in the order at para 5 do not suffer from any error of record. He has also referred to the order passed by the appellate authority in support of the submission that it was without reason. He further submits that the findings of learned Tribunal in the order at para 5 do not suffer from any error of record. He has also referred to the order passed by the appellate authority in support of the submission that it was without reason. Learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the order of appellate authority is also non-speaking. In such circumstances, no error can be found in the impugned order deserving interference under judicial review. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the relevant materials and pleadings on record as noted above and also the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. On consideration of the pleadings on record, particularly Original Application No. 270 of 1998, the order dated 10th March, 2004 (Annexure-1), it is clear that the findings of learned Tribunal in the impugned order at para 5 to the effect that the applicant had not been supplied copy of inquiry report is erroneous. It is contrary to the record. As a matter of fact, the very inquiry report was challenged by the delinquent applicant contending that the copies of document were not supplied, PWs were not allowed to be cross-examined and evidence was taken behind his back. This contention was negated by learned Tribunal in the order passed in O.A. No. 270 of 1998. Learned Tribunal in the instant O.A. No. 231 of 2005, therefore, fell in complete error in holding otherwise. It is further evident that the matter was remanded by learned Tribunal by order dated 10th March, 2004 to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order. The order of disciplinary authority was not interfered with. The appellate authority passed the order thereafter on 24th September, 2004, which reflects application of mind and records reason for affirming the order of disciplinary authority. The gist of the order passed by the appellate authority shows that the applicant was on duty on the date of issue of EFT and that he had issued the EFT, as would be apparent from the Xerox copies of EFT (Passenger Record and Accounts) foils available in the file. The charges related to misappropriation of Government money with malaflde intention. The quantum of amount misappropriated would make no different in such circumstances. 10. The charges related to misappropriation of Government money with malaflde intention. The quantum of amount misappropriated would make no different in such circumstances. 10. We are of the view that learned Tribunal was not right in holding that the order of appellate authority is not a speaking order or that no reasons or grounds have been assigned as urged by the applicant. An order of affirmance by the appellate authority need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal. The appellate order should disclose application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Railway relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 . Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramm Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 , paras 5 and 6, which are quoted hereunder : "5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover Case has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appel late authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. 6. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divl. Forest Officer vs. Madhusudan Rao (vide SCC para 20 : JT para 19), and in M.P. Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India (vide SCC par 6 : AIR para 6), etc." 11. As such, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it also suffers from serious error of record. and Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India (vide SCC par 6 : AIR para 6), etc." 11. As such, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it also suffers from serious error of record. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 231 of 2005 dated 11th December, 2007 is set aside. The instant petition stands allowed.