Anjay Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner by way of this writ petition calls in question the legality, validity and the correctness of the order dated 24.01.2012 (AnnexureÂP/1)

passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondent No.2, whereby the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner

affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.09.2011/03.10.2011 (AnnexureÂP/2) passed by the respondent No.3 imposing major

punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance

with Rule 27 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter would be referred to as 'the

Rules of 1966'), which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has only affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority

reiterating the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as such the order of the Appellate Authority deserves to be setÂaside and the matter be

remitted to the Appellate Authority for considering and deciding the appeal of the petitioner afresh in accordance with Rule 27(2) (a) (b) (c) of the

Rules of 1966.

Mr. Rai, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order.

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

circumspection.

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 it had applied its 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).

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that the Appellate Authority has simply agreed with

the finding of the Enquiry Officer as held by the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal and no finding has been recorded as to whether the

procedure has been followed or not by the Disciplinary Authority while conducting enquiry and the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the

rules and as to whether the findings are warranted by the evidence available on record and punishment awarded is adequate or excessive and it

requires interference and straightway dismissed the appeal, as such the Appellate Authority has failed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance

with Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 24.01.2012 (Annexure P/1) is hereby setÂaside and the matter is

remitted to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law and Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966 and pass a

reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinÂ​above. No order as to cost(s).