Amresh (Dead) Through LR's vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Proceedings of this matter have been takenÂ​up through video conferencing.

The petitioner was subjected to regular departmental enquiry for charges levelled against him and ultimately he and one Arun Shrivastava both

were dismissed by order dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure P/6), against which, they preferred appeals. By the appellate order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure

PÂ1), appeal of Shri Arun Shrivastava was partly allowed and appeal of the present petitioner has been dismissed, against which, this writ petition has

been filed.

Mr.A.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in a very cryptic and unreasoned order, appeal of the petitioner has been

dismissed. No reason has been assigned to decide the appeal though Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)

Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1966') is applicable, but nothing has been decided in accordance with law.

On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate, would support the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

It is true that the petitioner is governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and his appeal is governed by Regulation 262

of the Police Regulations, which states as under:Â​

“262. Appeal. â€" Every officer against whom an order may be passed under Regulation 214 and who thinks himself wronged thereby shall be

entitled to prefer an appeal against such order to the authority immediately superior to the officer who passed the order of punishment and if the

appeal is from an officer of the rank of Inspector or of an equivalent rank and the appeal relates to an order that that referred to in subÂhead (1) of

Regulation 214 and is rejected by the appellate authority, he may prefer a second appeal to the State Government.â€​

Regulation 262 of the Police Regulations is silent about the procedure to be followed while considering the appeal, but how the appeal has to be

decided and whether aid and assistance can be taken from the provisions contained in the Rules 1966.

The Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mahesh Kumar Shrikishan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 1985 MPLJ 516

(see PÂ22.) held that the applicability of the Control and Appeal Rules is not altogether excluded, where the Police Regulations are silent the provision

of Control and Appeal Rules would apply in departmental enquiries against subordinate police staff.

There is no express provision with regard to the manner of hearing the appeal, therefore, following the principle of law laid down by the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Mahesh Kumar Shrikishan Tiwari (supra), Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 can be taken aid of for consideration of appeal.

Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 provides as under:Â​

“27. Consideration of appeal.Â(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the

light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the

order accordingly.

(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule,

the appellate authority shall consider,Â​

(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such nonÂcompliance has resulted in the violation of

any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;

(b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records; and

(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass ordersÂ​

(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the

circumstances of the case....â€​

It is well settled position of law that the appellate authority in disciplinary proceeding acts in quasiÂjudicial capacity and order passed has to be

reasoned one and showing application of mind to the question raised by the appellant and if it is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. (See Divisional

Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 3 SCC 469).

The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by observing that an appellate authority by deciding statutory appeal is not only required to give

hearing to the Government servant, but pass a reasoned order dealing with the contention raised in the appeal. (See Deokinandan Sharma v. Union of

India and others (2001) 5 SCC 340).

Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority it may not be speaking order, but the authority passing the same

must show that there had been proper application of mind in compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction particularly when

the rules required application of mind on several factors and several contentions had been raised and he was bound to assign reasons so as to enable

the Court reviewing its decision to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the rule required to do. (See Narinder

Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2006) 4 SCC 713).

A careful perusal of the appellate order would show that the appellate authority simply in three lines holding that the petitioner has not improved

despite 23 small punishments awarded to him, he is a man of indiscipline and he is not able to correct himself, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Either

of the requirement of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966 has not been considered making the order vulnerable and it is liable to be set aside.

As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure PÂ1) passed by the appellate authority

is hereby setÂaside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with Rule 27 (2) of

the Rules of 1966 keeping in view that other delinquent has already been reverted and his punishment of dismissal is set aside within 45 days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing legal representatives of the petitioner and other side and pass a reasoned and speaking order,

strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Legal representatives of the petitioner will entitle for benefit, if ultimately

any benefit is to be awarded. No order as to cost(s).