1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9780 OF 2009 K.V.Pillai. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr. Advocate i/b. Ramesh Rammurthy & S.Ramamurthy, for Petitioner. Mr.A.P.Shetty & Jaydeep Deo, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 27th January,2010. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner by this petition makes a grievance against the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in Original Application no.443 of 2005. That original 2 application was filed by the petitioner challenging the order by which his employer imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner by order dated 8.7.2004. One of the grievances made by the petitioner in his application before the C.A.T. was that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Textile Commissioner i.e. Respondent no.2 under Rule 27 of the Central Civil Services Rules. But the Appellate authority decided the appeal without complying with the requirement of Rule 27 of C.C.S. (CCA) Rules. The Tribunal in its judgment has referred to the contention of the petitioner but has not decided that contention and has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents. He is not in a position to dispute that the contention that the Appellate Authority has not followed the provisions of Rule 27 of C.C.S.(CCA) Rules was raised before the Tribunal but it has not been decided. Rule 27 of C.C.S.(CCA) Rules reads as under:- 3 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 10 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 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, 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 record; 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 4 (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 these cases; provided that- (i) the Commission shall be consulted in all cases where such consultation is necessary; (ii)if such enhanced penalty which the Appellate Authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 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 a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and 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 11 and an enquiry under Rule 14 has been held in 5 the case, the Appellate Authority shall make such orders as it may deem fit after the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposed penalty; and (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. (3). In an appeal against any other oder specified in Rule 23, the Appellate Authority shall consider all the circumstances of the case and make such orders as it may deem just and equitable. The provisions of Rule 27 C.C.S.(CCA) Rules have been considered by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case R.P.Bhatt Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1986)2 SUPREME COURT CASES 651 . What has been stated by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 4 & 5 of that judgment in relation to Rule 27 is relevant, it reads as under:- 6 4. The word  consider in Rule 27(2) implies  due application of mind . It is clear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the appellate authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such non- compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. (5) There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with; and if not, whether such non- compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution 7 or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of clause (c) of Rule 27(2), viz. Whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director General is liable to be set aside. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Authority has to decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27. We have perused the order passed by the Appellate Authority, we find that the Appellate Authority has not complied with the requirements of Rule 27 in deciding the appeal. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- 8 (i) The order dated 8.9.2009 passed in Original Application no.443 of 2005 is set aside. (ii) The order dated 31.3.2005 passed by Respondent no.2 as Appellate Authority is also set aside. That appeal is remitted back to Respondent no.2 for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law, generally and in compliance of Rule 27 of the Rules quoted above in particular. (iii) In view of the fact that the petitioner will reach his age of superannuation in October,2010, the Respondent no.2 is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner appears before the Respondent no.2. The petitioner to appear before the Respondent no.2 on 22.2.2010 alongwith a copy of this order. The Respondent no.2 shall decide the appeal within a period of two months from 22.2.2010. (iv) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order 9 as to costs. (v) In case, the petitioner desires to raise any additional contentions in the appeal, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make an application for that purpose before the Respondent no.2 on the date on which he appears before him i.e. 22.2.2010. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)