ORDER : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order, dated 18.11.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in Original Application No.5093 of 2000. 2. While the 1st petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tiruvuru, a charge memo, dated 17.08.1988, was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, vide proceedings in Rc.H.5403/1987, dated 17.08.1988, framing as many as five charges. Subsequently, the matter was enquired into and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, vide proceedings in Rc.H.5403/1987, dated 15.05.1991, submitted a report to the District Collector, Krishna-1st respondent herein, holding the 1st petitioner herein guilty of the charges and proposing infliction of punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, on 25.11.1993, a show cause notice was issued by the District Collector vide proceedings Rc.A2.778/88, dated 25.11.1993, calling upon the 1st petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal, as proposed, should not be inflicted under Rule 9(ix) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). Subsequently, the District Collector, vide proceedings Rc.A2/778/88, dated 14.02.1994, passed the order of dismissal. Assailing the said order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, the 1st petitioner herein preferred a statutory appeal under CCA Rules before the Commissioner of Land Revenue on 26.02.1994. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, by virtue of order in CLR’s Procgs.No.N2/497/94, dated 10.06.1994, dismissed the appeal preferred by the 1st petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authorities, the matter was further carried before the State Government by way of revision, and the State Government vide memo, No.77261/Ser.IV.2/97, dated 08.08.2000, dismissed the revision filed by the 1st petitioner herein. In the above background, assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, the 1st petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.5093 of 2000. The Tribunal, by way of the order under challenge in the present Writ Petition, dismissed the Original Application and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Pending the Writ Petition, the 1st petitioner died and his legal representatives came on record as petitioners 2 to 4, vide order, dated 09.11.2011 passed in WPMP.no.22427 of 2011. 4. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Pending the Writ Petition, the 1st petitioner died and his legal representatives came on record as petitioners 2 to 4, vide order, dated 09.11.2011 passed in WPMP.no.22427 of 2011. 4. In the above background, the issue which this Court is called upon to answer in the present Writ Petition is: “Whether the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the Original Application filed by the 1st petitioner is sustainable and tenable, and whether the order of the Tribunal warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 5. Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents. 6. In the instant case, pursuant to the charge memo issued on 17.08.1988, an enquiry officer was appointed, and the enquiry officer submitted report, finding the 1st petitioner guilty of the charges and recommended infliction of punishment of dismissal from service. Pursuant to the said report, a show cause notice was issued on 25.11.1993 and the same was followed by order of dismissal, dated 14.02.1994 passed by the District Collector-1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, a statutory appeal was filed by the 1st petitioner herein on 26.02.1994 and the appellate authority, by way of an order, dated 10.06.1994, dismissed the said appeal, and the same was confirmed in revision by the State Government vide memo, dated 08.08.2000. It is incidentally brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the criminal prosecution launched against the 1st petitioner herein ended in acquittal and the same also missed the attention of the authorities and the Tribunal while deciding the issue. 7. The material available on record reveals, in clear and vivid terms, that as against the order of dismissal, dated 1st 14.02.1994, passed by the respondent-disciplinary 1st authority, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules. A copy of the same is filed along with the Writ Petition as material papers. The 1st petitioner herein raised and urged a number of issues while attacking/impugning the order of the disciplinary authority. A copy of the same is filed along with the Writ Petition as material papers. The 1st petitioner herein raised and urged a number of issues while attacking/impugning the order of the disciplinary authority. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority/Commissioner of Land Revenue, dated 10.06.1994, makes it abundantly clear that the appellate authority did not make any endeavour to consider the contents of the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner herein except saying that the appellate authority did not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Collector, so also the case with the revisional authority while passing orders vide memo, dated 08.08.2000. The remedy of appeal/revision, as provided under the statutory Rules, is not a mere formality. It is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the authorities to consider the grounds of appeal/revision from proper perspective. It is a settled and well established principle of law that the orders of the quasi judicial authorities are required to be supported by valid and convincing reasons. In the instant case, the appellate and revisional authorities adhered to the same in breach. 8. Though a number of contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the manner in which the enquiry was held, this Court is not inclined to delve into said aspects since this Court is inclined to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate authority while setting aside the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 18.11.2008 in Original Application No.5093 of 2000. The order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue in CLR’s Procgs.No.N2/497/94, dated 10.06.1994, and order of the revisional authority vide Memo No.77261/Ser.IV.2/97, dated 08.08.2000 are also set aside. Consequently the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner stands restored to file for fresh consideration of the 2nd respondent-appellate authority strictly in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners 2 to 4 herein, who are the legal representatives of the 1st petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.11268 of 2009, dated 01.06.2009 with regard to recovery of the amount involved, shall remain operative pending consideration of the appeal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.