@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Sujoy Paul, J.@mdashThe petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge sheet. After reply, the respondents have appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer found the charges as proved. After giving opportunity to the petitioner to represent, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Against that order dated 28.04.2001 the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 08.06.2001 which is running in nine pages. This appeal was rejected by the order dated 21st September, 2001. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi submits that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment. The appellate authority has not applied its mind and did not assign any reasons for rejection of the detailed appeal of the petitioner.
2. Shri Newaskar, on the contrary, supported the order and submits that enquiry report and punishment order are speaking orders and therefore, appellate authority was not bound to assign any further reason.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is apt to quote Rule 27 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as "CCA Rules") which reads 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 non-compliance 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.
Provided that-
(i) the Commission shall be consulted in all cases where such consultation is necessary;
(ii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 and an inquiry under Rule 14 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 19, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, make such orders as it may deem fit.
(iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 and an inquiry under Rule 14 has already been held in the case the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed, make such order as it deem fit.
(iv) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16, of making a representation against such enhanced penalty.
5. A bare perusal of the Rule 27 shows that the appellate authority is under a statutory obligation to consider the fairness and procedural part of the enquiry, appropriateness of the findings and quantum of punishment. The Apex Court in
6. On the basis of aforesaid, it is clear that the impugned order Annexure A/1 dated 21st September, 2001 runs contrary to the requirement of Rule 27 of CCA rules and principles of natural justice. It is against the settled provisions narrated above. Consequently, the order (Annexure A/1) dated 21st September, 2001 is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate order within 4 months. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
