Mehandi Hussain vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1510 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                          NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                Writ Petition (S) No.799 of 2010
    Mehandi Hussain, S/o Shri Munshiram Ansari, aged about
    42 years, R/o Mominpura, Ambikapur, District Surguja
    (CG)
                                                           ­­­­ Petitioner
                               Versus
    Chhattisgarh State         Electricity      Distribution         Company
    Limited through
  1. Chief Engineer (Sancha.Sandha./Ra.She.) Chhattisgarh
     State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Raipur
     (CG)
  2. Superintendent Engineer, Durg Circle, Chhattisgarh State
     Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Durg (CG)
  3. Executive Engineer, (Sancha.Sandha.) Chhattisgarh State
     Electricity   Distribution   Company  Limited,   Bhilai
     Division, District Durg (CG)
  4. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity
     Distrubution Company Limited, District Durg (CG)
                                                           ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Nair, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 2.8.2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken­up through

video conferencing.

2. The petitioner calls in question legality and validity

of order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P­1) by which his

services have been terminated by the disciplinary

authority by imposing major punishment and by the

impugned order dated 25.9.2009 (Annexure P­5) the

appellate authority has affirmed the order of the

disciplinary authority terminating the services of the

petitioner and thereby dismissed the appeal.

3. Mr.Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that appeal preferred by the

petitioner was required to be considered and disposed of

by the appellate authority in accordance with Rule 27

(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification,

Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as

'the Rules of 1966'), which has not been done in this

case and the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed, as

such, the order of the appellate authority deserves to

be set­aside and the matter be remitted to the appellate

authority for considering the appeal of the petitioner

afresh in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Rules of

1966.

4. On the other hand, Mr.K.R.Nair, learned counsel for the

respondents, would support the impugned order and submit

that the Board has adopted Chhattisgarh Civil Services

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and

also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

6. It is true that the petitioner's services are governed

by the Rules of 1966. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966

provides as under:­

"27. Consideration of appeal.­(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,­

(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non­compliance 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 orders­

(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...."

7. It is well settled position of law that the appellate

authority in disciplinary proceeding acts in quasi­

judicial 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 Rao1).

8. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by

1 (2008) 3 SCC 469

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 others2).

9. 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 others3).

10. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the

light of the aforesaid provision and principle of law

laid down by the Supreme Court in the above­stated

judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that appeal

preferred by the petitioner has not been considered by

the appellate authority in the light of clause (a) to

(c) of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966 and dismissed the

2 (2001) 5 SCC 340 3 (2006) 4 SCC 713

appeal by unreasoned and non­speaking order on 25.9.2009

(Annexure P­5), which ought to have been considered by

the appellate authority in the light of clause (a) to

(c) of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966.

11. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid

discussion, the impugned order dated 25.9.2009 (Annexure

P­5) passed by appellate authority is hereby set­aside.

The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for

considering the appeal of the petitioner afresh in

accordance with Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966 within

60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

and to pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing

the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The

petitioner is at liberty to make additional

representation/submission before the appellate

authority.

12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent

indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/­

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge

B/­