CW 9830/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.9830/2006 Vishram Meena Versus Raj. Gramin Bank Alwar. Date of Order ::: 20/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Prahlad Singh & Mr. Sajid Ali, for petitioner Mr. Ajay Gupta, for respondent-Bank Instant petition has been filed by petitioner, assailing order dt.05/10/05 (Ann.6) inflicting penalty of reduction to a lower scale in a time scale by four annual grade increments (reduction of basic pay from Rs.19920/- to 17680/-) and so also rejection of his appeal by a laconic and non-speaking order dt.09/06/06 (Ann.8). Petitioner while working as Branch Manager in respondent-Bank at Bhonkar (Alwar) was served with charge sheet dt.10/01/05 (Ann.1) imputing allegations of misuse of official position & negligence while sanctioning and distribution of loan on available resources; and distribution of loan to ineligible person and accordingly his official act being violative of Reg.17 & 19 of Alwar Bharatpur Gramin Bank Officer & Employees Service Regulations, 2000 (“Regulations-2000”) was a misconduct punishable U/Reg. 39 of Regulations, 2000. CW 9830/06 //2// Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and after regular inquiry, inquiry officer found the charges proved against him and based on record of inquiry, disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded by inquiry officer and held the petitioner guilty of misconduct as per charge-sheet and finally inflicted penalty of reduction of pay to a lower scale by four annual grade increments vide order dt.05/10/05 (Ann.6) – against which he preferred appeal (Ann.7) but the same was rejected by appellate authority by a laconic & non-speaking order. Hence this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that appeal has been rejected by non-speaking order and the appellate order does not disclose as to whether record of inquiry was at all considered and on this ground alone, order of appellate authority deserves to be set aside. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and while supporting order of appellate authority, their counsel submits that since there was no fresh grounds urged by petitioner in his appeal; as such it has rightly been rejected vide order (Ann.8), which does not call for interference. I have considered rival contentions of CW 9830/06 //3// Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Reg.47 of Regulations, 2000 reads ad infra: “47. Right to appeal - (i)An officer or employee shall have right of appeal against any order passed under these Regulations which injuriously affects his interest. (ii)The appeal shall be preferred to the appellate authority mentioned in Regulation 48 within 45 days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appellate authority shall consider the appeal and pass suitable order preferably within a period of six months.” U/Reg.47 of Regulations, 2000, an office or employee who is aggrieved by order of penalty can prefer appeal and if such appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered by appellate authority by passing suitable orders within a period stipulated therein. U/Reg.47 an Officer/employee has been provided a right of appeal against any order passed under Regulations, 2000 which adversely affects his interest; and there is an obligation upon appellate authority to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders. Word, “consider” has been examined by Apex Court in RP Bhatt Vs. CW 9830/06 //4// Union of India (19986(2) SCC 651) and observed ad infra: “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 of the provisions of the Constitution of India 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 remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same.” Apex Court in Ram Chander Vs. Union of India (1986(3) SCC 103) observed ad infra: “5. To say the least, this is just a mechanical reproduction of the phraseology of R.22(2) of Railway Servants Rules without any attempt on the part of the Railway Board either to marshall the evidence on record with a view to decide whether the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority could be sustained or not. There is also no indication that the Railway Board applied its mind as to whether the act of misconduct with which the appellant was charged together with the attendant circumstances and the past record of the appellant were such that he should CW 9830/06 //5// have been visited with the extreme penalty or removal from service for a single lapse in a span of 24 years of service. Dismissal or removal from service is a matter of grave concern to a civil servant who after such a long period of service, may not deserve such a harsh punishment. There being non- compliance with the requirements of r.22 (2) of the Railway Servants Rules, the impugned order passed by the Railway Board is liable to be set aside.” It is true that disciplinary authority is sole Judge of facts but in case appeal is preferred to the appellate authority to which powers are vested to appreciate evidence & conclusions drawn by disciplinary authority based on record of inquiry, being fact finding authority ought to have considered appeal preferred by delinquent where he challenged the findings of guilt and raised objections against it, as well, besides challenge to the charges imputed against him on merits. In instant case, petitioner in his appeal has urged various grounds on which he assailed finding of guilt recorded against him by inquiry officer as regards charges being found proved; and has also challenged order of disciplinary authority on the grounds that it failed to consider submissions contended in his CW 9830/06 //6// reply to the show cause notice as well as charge sheet and in appeal he has also raised ground that his plea has not been properly appreciated by inquiry officer and disciplinary authority. Appellate order demonstrates total non- application of mind and consideration of record of inquiry as required U/Reg.47 of Regulations, 2000. While examining his appeal, appellate authority after mentioning stock phrases of appeal being considered and found no merits, without assigning reasons by a laconic & non- speaking order, rejected his appeal. It was expected from appellate authority to consider contentions having been raised in memo of appeal and to assign reasons as to enable writ court to ascertain as to whether appellate authority applied its mind to relevant factors while passing order impugned. Order of appellate authority cannot be regarded as reasoned & speaking order which appellate authority was under obligation to record, in terms of Reg.47 of Regulations, 2000. Counsel for petitioner also made submission assailing the order of disciplinary authority on various grounds. However, since order of appellate in the opinion of this Court is not found to be legally sustainable; as such CW 9830/06 //7// opportunity is available to raise all such objections/grounds at the stage appeal. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby partly allowed. Order dt.09/06/06 (Ann.8) is hereby quashed & set aside. Matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner who will be free to submit additional pleas, if desires so in regard to his pending appeal within one month, and decide the appeal expeditiously but not later than three months thereafter. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.7/9830CW06Rsr-20Fb.doc