ORDER : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party-Corporation. 2. The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the inquiry report dated 23.12.2002 in Annexure-2, consequential order of dismissal dated 26.02.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-3, the order of relieve dated 26.02.2003 passed by the Station Master, Central Zone, Cuttack in Annexure-4 and the consequential appellate order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the Appellate authority confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-6. 3. Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who was working as a driver placed under suspension on 01.05.2002 and a proceeding was initiated against him vide letter dated 21.05.2002 for causing an accident to the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-04-A-4431 while returning from Khariarto Cuttack on 27.04.2002 at place after Madhapur. It is contended that the disciplinary authority passed order of removal from service vide Annexure-3 and, as such, though the petitioner preferred appeal, without applying its mind, the appellate authority confirmed the same in Annexure-6 without assigning any reason. Thereby, the orders so passed by the authorities be quashed. 4. Mr. S. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party-Corporation contended that since the petitioner was in negligent in duty and, as such, due to his negligent driving the vehicle met with an accident causing damaged to the vehicle in question and sustained loss to the corporation, whatever loss sustained to the corporation, the same was directed to be recovered from him. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority to recover the amount of loss caused to the corporation. Consequentially, the orders so passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is well justified, which need not warrant any-interference by this Court at this stage. 5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, as it appears, on 27.04.2002, the petitioner plying the bus bearing Registration No OR-04-A-4431 from Khariar to Cuttack. The vehicle in question met with an accident (front to front collision) against a huge road side tree after Madhapur After receiving the information, the authorities along with mechanical staff attended the accident spot and brought back the vehicle to Cuttack. The vehicle in question met with an accident (front to front collision) against a huge road side tree after Madhapur After receiving the information, the authorities along with mechanical staff attended the accident spot and brought back the vehicle to Cuttack. An accident report was prepared wherein it has been indicated that the vehicle was brought back with minor repair at the accident spot. But the technical inspection report indicates that there was, no casualty and few passengers sustained minor injury, who were released after first-aid from Dasapalla Medical. Keeping in view the condition of the accident vehicle and to make it roadworthy, again the vehicle was sent to a private body builder for its repair and the amount of cost involved for the said work was Rs. 83,724/- and Rs. 7138.50 respectively. As such, the vehicle was kept idle from 27.04.2002'to 08.09.2002 (138 days) for the accident repair Thereby, the corporation lost passenger revenue. Accordingly, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 27.05.2002 and to that inquiry was conducted and, as such, inquiry officer opined that the charges brought against the delinquent petitioner are established beyond any reasonable doubt and more over the delinquent had also failed to attend the legitimate duty at the accident spot by remain absent from the spot. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service with effect from the date of issuance of the order, i.e., 26.02.2003 and also directed for recovery of the financial loss sustained to the corporation to the tune of Rs. 86,393/- towards the damage cost from the dues of the petitioner in order to compensate the loss suffered by the corporation Being aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal, but the appellate authority passed order on 23.12.2004 stating that on careful perusal of the appeal petition filed by the petitioner along with other connected records, it is found that the departmental enquiry report clearly speaking of that the negligent driving of the driver caused the accident and the technical inspection report also reveals that the cause of accident was due to negligent driving and high speed at bend road. As such, the appellate authority did not find any ground to interfere with the disciplinary orders passed by the DTM (A), Cuttack dated 26.02.2003 and accordingly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. As such, the appellate authority did not find any ground to interfere with the disciplinary orders passed by the DTM (A), Cuttack dated 26.02.2003 and accordingly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. On perusal of the appeal memo filed by the petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, clearly indicates the grounds for preferring the appeal, which are extracted hereunder:- "(1) Preliminary inquiry report basing on which charges were framed was not supplied. (2) Accident vehicle was not examined by the MVI- or any other expert to determine the cause of accident and cost thereon. (3) Log book of the vehicle was not produced at the time of enquiry (4) No documents or papers were produced to the inquiry office at the time of inquiry to estimate the cost of damage. (5) Charges were framed basing on the version of the garage staff who were not impartial but waited to cover their own failures. (6) During inquiry, the delinquent was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses. (7) Statement of the 2nd driver and other passengers were not considered while preparing inquiry report. (8) Cost mentioned in the charges did not relate to the accident. But for the renovation of the vehicle and its engine. (9) Past records had been made grounds for punishment without giving opportunity for its defence. (10) Punishment is unjust and most disproportionate to the offence. (11) Personal hearing was not conducted on second show cause notice. (12) Full pay, dues and other arrears were not paid while dismissing the appellant." 7. The grounds of appeal set out in the appeal memo have not been considered by the appellate authority. Rather, in a perfunctory manner, the appellate authority has passed the order impugned in Annexure-6 without any application of mind and without assigning any reason. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority, while considering the appeal, should have given reason with regard to each of the grounds taken in the appeal memo. But in absence of such same, it can safely be stated that the appellate authority has not applied its mind, rather he has only given a rubber stamp to the order of the disciplinary authority, which is not permissible under law. 8. But in absence of such same, it can safely be stated that the appellate authority has not applied its mind, rather he has only given a rubber stamp to the order of the disciplinary authority, which is not permissible under law. 8. 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. 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 8 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. 10. Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 , Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and in Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625 . 11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order so passed by the appellate authority in Annexure-6 cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority with a direction that the same shall be reconsidered and disposed of by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months form the date of production/communication of this order by the petitioner. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.