JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order of punishment dated 10.02.2015 and also the appellate order dated 26.06.2015. Petitioner confines his prayer to the appellate order. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the heading of the order it has been mentioned that the same is speaking order, but, perusal of the same will lead to only one conclusion that the order is cryptic and without any reasons. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned appellate order. It is necessary to quote the appellate order, which reads as under: SPEAKING ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Date : 26/06/2015 Appeal in terms of regulation no.49 and 50 of chapter IV of the Vananchal Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2010 by Sri Nand Kumar Mahto, retired MMGS-II officer In connection with the agenda item No.12 Annexure: ‘K’ the appellate authority, which is the Board of the Bank in this case, has gone through the details of charge-sheet, findings of the inquiry Officer, speaking order of D.A. dated 10/02/2015 and submission of the charge-sheeted officer Sri Nand Kumar Mahto vide his appeal dated 25/03/2015. After the discussion in the matter, we the undersigned Board members have decided to uphold the punishment order passed by D.A. dated 10/02/2015. We, therefore, confirm the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide his Speaking Order dated 10/02/2015. (B K Dash) Member, Board of Directors & Appellate Authority (Satish Kumar) Member, Board of Directors & Appellate Authority (P K Singh) Member, Board of Directors & Appellate Authority 5. Petitioner was punished in a departmental proceeding. The punishment was as follows: i) Stoppage of 1st stagnation increment which was due on 01/09/2010 and 2nd stagnation increment is not eligible on account of leave without pay. ii) 7 days overdrawn salary will be adjusted from the Salary of December, 2012 which is held in the sundry deposit account of Mahuadanr Branch and rest amount to be released to him. iii) No extra ordinary leave to be granted for unauthorized absent of 758 (826-68) days treating it as leave without pay. iv) No interest will be payable for delayed payment of retirement/terminal benefit. 6. iii) No extra ordinary leave to be granted for unauthorized absent of 758 (826-68) days treating it as leave without pay. iv) No interest will be payable for delayed payment of retirement/terminal benefit. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, petitioner filed a detailed appeal, which is Annexure 21 to the writ petition. Several grounds have been taken in the memo of appeal. The grounds are, both on facts and law. On amongst others, the petitioner has also taken a ground on retrospective effect of the rules and also the ground that the punishment, which has been inflicted upon him is not provided in the Rules itself. These grounds ought to have been addressed by the appellate authority, but the appellate authority has not addressed any of the grounds, which the petitioner had raised. Being a statutory appellate authority, the appellate authority should have considered and passed a reasoned order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner. To the contrary, the appellate authority in one line in cryptic manner has dismissed the appeal, upholding the punishment, when the legality of the punishment was under challenge in the appeal. Appellate authority should have considered the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal while considering the appeal itself. The word ‘consider’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others versus A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 . In paragraph 19 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an opinion has to be formed by the statutory authority, which should be reflected on the records itself. The order of the appellate authority should reflect the application of mind and the appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language of disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm the order. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment reads as under: 19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide India Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar and Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat). 7. Proposition has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the appellate order, I find that the same is cryptic, does not even touch far less deal with the points raised by the petitioner. Thus, the appellate order dated 26.06.2015 needs to be set aside. The same is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider afresh the appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is expected that the appeal filed by the petitioner will be decided afresh within 16 (sixteen) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to be filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.