1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4075/2007 (Baban Hanmayyaji Virmalwar VERSUS The Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., thro. its Chairman Nagpur & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Badar, counsel for the R-1 to 4. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 7, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.07.2006 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner was brought on his original pay-scale and his future increments for a period of three years were permanently withheld, as well as order dated 16.03.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order dated 21.07.2006 came to be modified. The counsel for the petitioner states that in the present writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 16.03.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority. It is contended that the order is cryptic and does not disclose any reason, and therefore, as per the Forest Development Corporation 2 Employees' Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the said order is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the procedure for disposal of appeal is stipulated in the said Rules and the relevant clause reads thus----- “The orders of the Appellate Authority shall give reasons for accepting or rejecting the employees' arguments advanced in appeal.” (Apart from other clauses). It is contended that in the instant case, the order does not show that the Appellate Authority has given any reasons for rejecting the various contentions canvassed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.03.2007 on this short ground is not sustainable in law. Mr. Badar, the learned Special Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4, tried to support the order on the ground that though the order is short, however, it shows application of mind as well as reasons are given for modifying the order dated 21.07.2006. Considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order as well as the relevant Rules. In the instant case, the petitioner 3 has put forth many contentions before the Appellate Authority. However, the order dated 16.03.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority is completely silent in this regard. The reasons given are cryptic and does not disclose proper application of mind by the Appellate Authority. The relevant Rule requires the Appellate Authority to give proper reasons for accepting or rejecting the arguments advanced in appeal. Even otherwise, it is incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the order passed by the lower authorities, whether based on proper evidence as well as the arguments advanced by the parties in appeal and the Appellate Authority must give proper reasoning for accepting or rejecting the contentions canvassed by the appellant. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we set aside the order dated 16.03.2007 and remit the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal which is restored on the file of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Department, take a decision on its own merits according to law within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 4 With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE APTE