ORDER : 1. The above writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the proceedings in Rc.No.APSPF/A3/PR/04/2017-2020 dated 10.11.2020 issued by respondent No.2 confirming the order of respondent No.3 in Rc.No.A3/101/PR- 04/Comdt – VJA/APSPF/2017-2020/D No.1650/O.O. No.A-40/2020 dated 03.09.2020. while the HC-1045 Sri Sk. Khasim Peera was giving shift fall-in report on 27.03.2017 at 1300 hrs. 2. Further, even the “A” shift duty officer Sri B. Vasudeva Rao, SI convicted him and informed it is not at all concerned to him and no need to argue with the SI Sri R. Shiva Sankar and keep quiet as the “B” shift duty officer and “B” shift duty personnel will settle the issue themselves, he paid deaf ear and aggressively argued that “Naaku Sambandham Leka povadam emiti? Nenu SPF lo Sabhyudini, Nenuadagakudada? Besides this, he encouraged indiscipline acts by instigating and provoking the “B” shift duty personnel to give complaint against their superior officer, Sri R. Shiva Sankar, SI stating that he had harassed the men. Article-II: He has directly written a letter to the Chief Minister on 26.03.2017 with a copy marked to high officials including Governor, Home Minister etc. He makes wild allegations against his superior officers for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. He also released the said letter to the press and a prominent daily Sakshi has carried it 21st April, 2017 edition. He claims that Director General, Commandant, Assistant Commandant, Inspector are conspiring to kill him etc. Article-III: That the said D. Raja Babu, HC 672 APSPF Srisailam is habitually misbehaving with superior officers on duty as shown by his service record. …” 3. While said disciplinary case is under progress, petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings, dated 17.05.2017 in another disciplinary case. Eventually punishment of removal from service was set aside and out of employment period was treated as “Not on Duty”. Respondent No.2 issued counter orders reinstating the petitioner into APSPF services and posted him to APSPF unit, Airport, Rajamahendravaram. 4. Since petitioner was reinstated into service, pending disciplinary case was reopened. Petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges leveled against him. Initially D.K.S. Raju, AC, APSPF, Rajamahendravaram was appointed as Inquiring Authority to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner, Inquiring Authority was changed and K. Sudhakara Rao, AC, SPF, Dr. NTTPS was appointed as Inquiring Authority. Petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges leveled against him. Initially D.K.S. Raju, AC, APSPF, Rajamahendravaram was appointed as Inquiring Authority to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner, Inquiring Authority was changed and K. Sudhakara Rao, AC, SPF, Dr. NTTPS was appointed as Inquiring Authority. Inquiring Officer, after conducting enquiry and after examining witnesses submitted report, dated 03.08.2020 to respondent No.3. As per Inquiring Officer, charges were duly proved against Articles I and II and charge was not proved against Article III. 5. Show cause notice, dated 05.08.2020 was issued to the petitioner along with enquiry report inviting further explanation. Petitioner submitted explanation, dated 24.08.2020. Respondent No.3 vide proceedings, dated 03.09.2020 imposed penalty of ‘removal from services’ under rule-9 (ix) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 with immediate effect. 6. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2. Appellate authority by proceedings, dated 10.11.2020 rejected the appeal stating that there are no grounds to interfere with the punishment already awarded to the petitioner. Assailing the said rejection order, present writ petition is filed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that neither Disciplinary Authority nor Appellate Authority considered the evidence of witnesses in proper perspective. He would also submit that the appellate authority being final fact finding authority must assess evidence on record. However, appellate authority simply confirmed proceedings of respondent No.3. He would also point out that the punishment imposed is in disproportionate to the charges framed. 9. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would support order passed by respondent No.2 confirming the order of respondent No.3. 10. As per the enquiry report submitted by K. Sudhakara Rao, Inquiring Officer, document Nos.1 to 13 were marked on prosecution side. Document No.1 is PE report, dated 31.03.2017, document Nos.2 to 11 are statements of individuals, document No.12 is letter addressed to Chief Minister of A.P. and document No.13 is news article published on 21.04.2017 in daily newspaper “Sakshi”. Inquiring Officer came to the conclusion that Article I is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and as also Article II. Inquiring Officer came to the conclusion that Article III is not proved. 11. Regarding Article I i.e. mis-behavior 11 witnesses were examined. Inquiring Officer came to the conclusion that Article I is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and as also Article II. Inquiring Officer came to the conclusion that Article III is not proved. 11. Regarding Article I i.e. mis-behavior 11 witnesses were examined. After report was submitted disciplinary authority recorded a finding that petitioner committed grave misconduct and willful dereliction towards legitimate duties and unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rule 13 of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Eventually disciplinary authority concluded that authority agreed with the finding and opinion of Inquiring Officer and imposed major penalty of removal from services. 12. Appeal is filed before appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2. Appellate authority confirmed the order, dated 03.08.2020, of inquiring officer. The order of appellate authority reads as follows: “I have carefully gone through the appeal petition and all other connected records of the departmental enquiry and also the service record of Sri D. Raja Babu. The charges against him were very serious in nature and clearly established during the departmental enquiry. His addressing a letter to the Hon’ble CM and releasing the same to the media is highly reprehensible and clearly proves his intent for incitement of indiscipline in a disciplined force like APSPF. On an earlier occasion also, he was awarded punishment for misbehaving with ASI 847 Sri A. Srinivasulu during staff parade on 25.10.2016. He was also awarded a punishment for circulating posters against Commandant, APSPF, Tirupati making totally baseless and wild allegations. It is very clear that Sri D. Raja Babu was indulging in mud-slinging against his superior Officers on multiple occasions resulting in loss of prestige for the department and severe unrest among the ranks of APSPF. Such misconduct cannot be viewed lightly in a uniformed service. It will be impossible to maintain discipline and chain of command in APSPF if “one turns a blind eye” towards such acts of gross indiscipline.” 13. Respondent No.2 being appellate authority should have passed a reasoned order. In the grounds of appeal, petitioner specifically contended that inquiring officer only considered the evidence of 4 prosecution witnesses and ignored the evidence of other witnesses, who deposed in favour of the charged officer. When such a ground was raised regarding non-consideration of the evidence, appellate authority being the final fact finding authority should have assessed veracity and considered the evidence on record. When such a ground was raised regarding non-consideration of the evidence, appellate authority being the final fact finding authority should have assessed veracity and considered the evidence on record. However, as seen from the order, appellate authority endorsed the order of passed by the disciplinary authority. 14. It is well settled law that reasons are heart and soul of any order. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shamsuddin v. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 SCC Online ALL 211 observed as under: “The reasons, it is now well settled, are heart and soul of any order and in the absence of any reasons, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority becomes vulnerable.” 15. Further mere recording of finding that ‘appellate authority considered’ does not in law mean that authority actually considered the grounds objectively. 16. The word ‘consider’ means there should be intense application of mind to the facts of the case basing on the averments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors v. A Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 scrutinized words ‘consider’ and held thus: “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. 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.” 17. In Bhikhubhaivithalabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 (4) SCC 144 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “… The term ‘consider means to think over; it connotes that there should be active application of the mind. In other words, the term ‘consider’ postulates consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter. …” 18. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Chellappan, 1976 (3) SCC 190 , 201 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the term “consider” postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. 19. …” 18. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Chellappan, 1976 (3) SCC 190 , 201 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the term “consider” postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. 19. In the case on hand, a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, in the considered opinion of this court, the learned appellate authority did not consider the appeal objectively. Though the appellate authority used the words considered and rejected as can be seen from the grounds raised by the petitioner the order of the appellate authority cannot be termed as ‘considered’ required under law. 20. An appeal provided for under the Rules can be treated as statutory in nature. Appeal is a remedy provided to delinquent employee, after imposition of penalty. Appellate authority is vested with powers to take into account relevant material and to satisfy himself, as to whether findings recorded in the enquiry report were proper and whether punishment imposed on the employee was proportionate to misconduct of which the employee is charged. Appellate authority may pass order confirming, enhancing, revising or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority who imposed penalty or to any other authority with such directions, as it deems fit in the circumstances of each case. The power of appellate authority is unlimited and on being satisfied, it can substitute its decision for the orders, which is appealed against. 21. As discussed supra, the appellate authority, though used words ‘considered and rejected, in the considered opinion of this Court, appellate authority, in fact did not consider the appeal objectively. When appellate authority failed to consider the appeal objectively, this Court can definitely interfere with such order. 22. In view of the above discussion, the proceedings in Rc.No.APSPF/A3/PR/04/2017-2020 dated 10.11.2020 issued by respondent No.2 confirming the order of respondent No.3 in Rc. No. A3/101/PR/04/Comdt –VJA/APSPF /2017-2020 /DNo.1650/O.O. No.A-40/2020 dated 03.09.2020 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall independently examine and consider the case of the petitioner objectively and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.