The main legal point established is that the Appellate Authority must actively apply its mind, consider all relevant aspects, and provide a detailed order when deciding appeals, as failure to do so would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and due process.

1. The petitioner, who was dismissed from service as Senior Assistant is before this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the findings of respondent No.4 as per Annexure-AG; the impugned order No. KaAaNaSaNiNi/Kashi/36/36A/2012-13/13-14 as per Annexure-AK passed by the 2nd respondent; the findings of the Enquiry Officer on enquiry report dated 31.8.2011 as per Annexure-AN; and the impugned order dated 2.7.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-AP.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the District Manager, Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘KFCS’) Shimoga during the year 2011, he was served with a charge sheet dated 13.6.2011 in which he was leveled with four charges by the General Manager of KFCS, who is disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet. Not being satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer after considering the entire material on record submitted a report on 8.3.2013 holding that charge Nos.1 and 3 are proved and charge Nos.2 and 4 are not proved. The second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority considering the entire material on record rejected the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 3 and accepted the findings on charge Nos. 2 and 4 and proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service on 4.1.2014 as per Annexure-AK. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Appellate Authority considering the material on record by the impugned order dated 2.7.2014 issued an endorsement dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-AP is not a speaking order. Except stating that after considering the entire material on record, the original authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service and absolutely no reason is assigned. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is contrary to the very provisions of appeal in view of the fact that when an appeal is preferred, the Appellate Authority has to consider the contentions raised by the appellant and assign reasons, but the same has not been done. The Appellate Authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority in an appeal. In support of his contentions, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others –vs- A. Masilamani reported in (2013)6 SCC 530 wherein it has been held that the order of the Appellate Authority itself should reveal such application of mind and it cannot simply adopt the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority and proceed to affirm its order. Therefore, he sought for quashing of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal and to pass orders assigning independent reasons in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, Sri M.V. Charati, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that while confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no need to assign any detailed reason by the Appellate Authority if it agrees or concurs with the findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. He further contended that in the statement of objections, it is stated that how the Appellate Authority has considered