Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioners are employees of the respondent - Corporation working as Deputy Chief Manager (Admn.) and Manager (Admn.) respectively. On the basis of certain acts committed by them, articles of charges were issued on 1.8.2001. They submitted their reply. It was un-satisfactory. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted his report on 30.10.2003. The charges against the petitioners were held to be proved. A second show cause notice was issued. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioners. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 31.7.2007 vide Annexure-A imposed the penalty of reducing the rank and time scale of pay to the lowest in their respective cadre, reserving its right to recover the financial losses. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 23.10.2009 vide Annexure-B rejected the appeal. Hence, the present Writ Petitions. Sri M.N. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that there are no reasons forthcoming in the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority in holding the case against the petitioners. Therefore, he prays that the Petitions be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside.

2. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents' counsel defends the impugned orders. He however, very fairly submits that in so far as the order passed by the Appellate Authority is concerned, the same is bereft of any reasoning. Therefore, he contends that the petitions be allowed only to the extent of remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration. He however, very strongly disputes the contention of the petitioners that the matter requires to be re-considered by the Disciplinary Authority. His primary contention is that if the Disciplinary Authority affirms the view expressed in the enquiry report, no reasons are required. It is suffice that the order of the Enquiry Officer stands approved by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, no reasons require to be assigned.

3. On hearing learned counsels', I am of the considered view that the issue for consideration is as to,

Whether the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority would have to record reasons while affirming the order passed by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority respectively?

4. Annexure-A shows that the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order affirming the order of the Enquiry Officer. The entire order reads thus:

ORDER

I, Azeezulla Baig, Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited under powers vested with me as per Rule 18A(vii), Rule 18A(iv) read with Rule 24 of Conduct and Disciplinary Rules 1979 of the Corporation hereby impose the penalty of reducing the rank and time scale of pay to the lowest in their respective cadre of Shri. H.V. Narayanaswamy, Deputy Chief Manager (LAQ), Shri G. Ramesh Babu, Manager (E and WA) and Shri S. Venkatesh Prasad, Senior Assistant, Coml. Section, H.O., Bangalore with immediate effect.

However, the Corporation reserves its rights to recover the financial losses caused to the Corporation at any point of time from the above said Delinquent Officer/Officials.

Sd/-

(AZEEZULLA BAIG)

MANAGING DIRECTOR &

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

5. It narrates that in exercise of the powers conferred, the penalty is being imposed. There are no reasons for affirmation or otherwise. The detailed reply to the second show cause notice, which has been produced herewith at Annexure-J, which incidentally runs into almost 30 pages, has not even been referred to. Subsequently, an appeal was filed, wherein by an extremely brief order, the appeal was dismissed as being bereft of merit.

6. In support thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ., AIR 1994 SC 1