IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.42865 of 2006 T.Jothi Prakash Sundar Raj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.5700 of 1999 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to quash the impugned order issued by the first respondent in his proceedings made in Che.Mu.Aaa.No.O.Na/2/38570/91, dated 15.05.1996 as confirmed by the second respondent in his proceedings made in G.O.(D) No.620, dated 11.08.1998 and communicated on 03.09.1998 as null and void, illegal and invalid by directing the respondents to disburse all the increment arrears and other attendant benefits placing the petitioner in the regular order of employment, promotion, pay scale and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Amalraj For Respondents: Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order of the second respondent dated 11.08.1998 confirming the order of the first respondent dated 15.05.1996. 2. The petitioner, a Junior Employment Officer, was given a charge and based on the charge, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately the Enquiry Offficer held that the charges are proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 15.05.1996, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government. The Government by an order dated 11.08.1998, confirmed the order of the punishing authority. 3. The only grievances of the counsel for petitioner at this point of time is that the Appellate Authorities order is a non speaking order and it is a one line order, the order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed, wherein the Appellate Authority has sought for the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and the recommendation of the Commission has been totally incorporated in the order and in the last line, it was only stated that the Commission has considered and found the punishment is fair enough, without giving any independent finding or any reasons for confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and therefore, in view of the non speaking order of the Appellate Authority and also taking into consideration the petitioner has already retired from service, the matter may be remitted back to the Appellate Authority namely the Government for consideration afresh from that point. 4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, substantiating the punishment and the fact that the enquiry was conducted properly and opportunity was given to the petitioner. Further, the punishment was commensurate to the charges. But as far as the order of the Appellate Authority is concerned, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the appellate authority has considered only the recommendations of the Commission and passed the order and therefore, it is valid. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. The short point for consideration as made by the petitioner is that the Appellate Authorities order is a non speaking order. When we read the Appellate Authority order, which contains one paragraph, it is stated as follows: "2/ jpU/n$hjpgpufhr Re;jh;uh$;. ,sepiy ntiytha;g;g [ mYtyhpd; nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpd; kPJ jkpH;ehL muRg; gzpahsh; njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;J nfl;fg;gl;lJ/ njh;thizak; ,jd; kPJ fUj;J bjhptpf;ifapy;. ,e;neh;tpy; jkpH;ehL Foikg; gzpfs; (xG';F kw;Wk; nky;KiwaPL) tpjpfspd; tpjp 17(M)d; fPH; gpd;gw;w ntz;oa eilKiwfs; gpd;gw;wg;gl;Ls;sd vd;Wk; eilKiwfspy; tGntJkpy;iy vd;Wk;. nkYk; ,t;tHf;fpy; Mtz';fis Ma;t[ bra;jjpy; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jz;lid bghUj;jkhdJ vdj; bjhpfpwJ vd;Wk; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ nky;KiwaPl;lhshpd; nky;KiwaPl;oy; xt;bthUehSk; 20 Kjy; 25 gjptl;ilfspy; ifbaGj;jpl ntz;o ,Ue;jjhy; ,j;jtWfs; neh;e;jjhff; Twpdhh;/ gjptl;ilfspy; ifbaGj;jpLk; nghJ gjpntLfspy; tptu';fis rhpghh;f;fhky; ,j;jtWfisr; bra;Js;shh;/ vdnt ,tuJ nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpidj; js;Sgo bra;ayhk; vd bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ muRf;F Mnyhrid tH';fpa[s;sJ/ muR njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;J kw;Wk; ,t;tHf;F rk;ge;jkhd midj;J Mtz';fisa[k; ftdj;Jld; mwpf;ifr; bra;jjpy;. ,t;tHf;fpy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsUf;F tH';fg;gl;Ls;s jz;lid bghUj;jkhdJ vd;Wk; njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;jpid Vw;fyhbkd;Wk;. kDjhuhpd; nky;KiwaPl;L kDit epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd KobtLj;J mt;thnw Mizaplg;gLfpd;wJ/" 7. It is very clear that the Appellate Authority had sought opinion from the Public Service Commission and extracted the opinion given by the Public Service Commission and thereafter the order would only confine to this message "muR njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;J kw;Wk; ,t;tHf;F rk;ge;jkhd midj;J Mtz';fisa[k; ftdj;Jld; mwpf;ifr; bra;jjpy;. ,t;tHf;fpy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsUf;F tH';fg;gl;Ls;s jz;lid bghUj;jkhdJ vd;Wk; njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;jpid Vw;fyhbkd;Wk;. kDjhuhpd; nky;KiwaPl;L kDit epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd KobtLj;J mt;thnw Mizaplg;gLfpd;wJ/ " 8. The only point which has been stated in the Appellate Authority order is that he had taken into consideration the opinion of the Public Service Commission and all the records have been considered and in only one sentence, it is stated that the punishment granted to the petitioner can be accepted and thereafter rejected the appeal. 9. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has not passed any order at all by applying his mind. It is well settled that the Disciplinary as well as Appellate authorities are fact findings authorities. The Appellate Authority ought to have passed a reasoned order dealing with the contention raised in the appeal. The Appellate Authority at least should have indicated his mind while disposing of the statutory appeal. Unfortunately, the findings of the Appellate Authority is laconic and therefore it is not sustainable. In this connection, this Court in the decision reported in V.P.Chellappa vs. Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri-5 and others (2010 1 MLJ 714) following the Supreme Court ruling has categorically held that order passed by the Appellate Authority should indicate application of mind and reasons however brief they may be, should be incorporated in the order. In that case, the Supreme Court decision reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darivs Shapur, Chennai (AIR 2005 SCC 3520) has been followed wherein at Paragraph 24, the Supreme Court held as follows: "When an order is passed by a statutory authority, the same must be supported either on the reasons stated therein or on the grounds available therefor in the record. A statutory authority cannot be permitted to support its order relying on or on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit de hors the order or for that matter de hors the records" 10. The right of appeal is substantive right and the Appellate Authority is the final fact finding authority and essentially an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. Therefore, the appellate authority has to examine the appeal in a manner provided in the statue and the Appellate authority should not merely confirm the order of the disciplinary authority. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in K.Elayaperumal vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai (2009 5 MLJ 1530) it was categorically held that the order passed by the Appellate Authority should indicate application of mind and reasons, however brief they may be, should be incorporated in the order. Hence, applying the above said ruling, the appellate authority's order is legally not sustainable. Hence, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.08.1998 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh in the light of the further representation, if any made by the petitioner, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ogy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to M/s. A. Amalraj, Advocate, SR. 20863 W.P.No.42865 of 2006 AKR (CO) kk 14/6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/