WP(C) 4955/2010 B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT & ORDER (Anima Hazarika, J) Challenge in this writ petition is made against the order dated 02.06.20 10, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, Tribunal), Guwahati Bench in Original Application No.174/09 whereby and whereunder the lea rned Tribunal set aside and quashed the order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the Dis ciplinary Authority imposing upon the respondent penalty of removal from service as affirmed vide Appellate Authority’s order dated 01.05.2009. Further by the s aid order the learned Tribunal remitted back the matter to the Department for ho lding a fresh inquiry after affording him opportunity of hearing with a direct ion to reinstate the respondent forthwith. 2. The factual matrix of the case in a nutshell is narrated hereinbelow; - The respondent herein is the appellant in OA No.174/2009 before the lear ned Tribunal, was appointed as Washer Up on 01.05.1996 under Indian Air Force (P ass No.825SU/D/41). While he was working at 825, Signal Unit, Air Force, C/O 99, APO, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 14 of Central Civil Ser vices (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Rules 1965 for short) agai nst him vide Memorandum No.825SU/1573/4/PC dated 22.06.2005. The two articles of charges framed against him are quoted hereunder: Article No. I Sri Bhogelu Koiri Washer Up (Pass No.825SU/D/41) while functioning at 82 5 Signal Unit, Air Force, C/O 99 APO, absented himself without leave of the sanc tioning authority w.e.f., 10-7-03 to 13-7-03, 16-7-03 to 19-7-03, 2-8-03 to 13-8 -03, 20-8-03 to 21-8-03, 24-8-03 to 26-8-03, 1-9-03 to 21-9-03, 3-10-03 to 4-10 -03, 17-10-03, 1-12-03 to 3-12-03, 9-1-04 to 13-1-04, 16-1-04 to 18-1-04, 19-2-0 4 to 22-2-04, 5-4-04, 28-3-04, 14-5-04 to 18-6-04, 2-7-04, 1-12-04 to 19-12-04, 8-2-05 to 15-3-05 (Total - 157 days) and 8-6-05 to till date. Thus he violated R ule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article No.II Sri Bhogelu Koiri, Washer up (Pass No.825 SU/D/41) while functioning at 825 Signal Unit, Air Force, C/O 99 APO, failed to comply the order of his superi or officer in contravention of Rule 3(i)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 3. On receipt of the articles of charges, wherein the imputations of miscon duct or misbehaviour was levelled, the delinquent submitted his written statemen t of defence on 05.07.2005 denying the charges contending, inter alia, that due to indifferent health he could not attend his duties on some occasions which can not be termed as deliberate or intentional, however, assured that he would atten d his duties on recovery. In regard to article of charge No. II, he denied the c harges of disobeying the orders of the superior officers and prayed for absolvin g him from the charges. 4. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the written statemen t of defence decided to hold the inquiry and accordingly, Sri SK Pandey, Flt. Lt . was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry and notice was issued to the delinquent to appear before the inquiry. The delinquent appeared before t he Inquiry Officer on 28.07.2005 seeking time to contest the proceeding with the help of a defence assistant. The Inquiry Officer, thereafter, fixed the next da te for hearing on 02.08.2005 but the delinquent failed to appear on the date as scheduled and on 10.08.2005, the Inquiry Officer passed an order holding that th e delinquent was guilty of both the charges. 5. The Disciplinary Authority took action on the inquiry report as envisage d under Rule 15 of the Rules 1965, having regard to its findings on both the cha rges and on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry removed him from se rvice vide order dated 29.09.2005 against which statutory appeal was preferred b y the respondent before the Appellate Authority under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1965 and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.05.2009 affirmed the order of t he Disciplinary Authority. 6. The order of removal affirmed by the Appellate Authority was under chall enge before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal interfered with the or der of removal followed by the order of the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.06.2010 in OA No.174/2009, the correctness of which is put on the file befor e this Court under certiorari jurisdiction. 7. We have heard Mr. R Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India , appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D Mazumdar, learned counsel appe aring for the respondent. Perused the judgment under challenge. A reading of the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal along with the inquiry report includi ng the order of removal affirmed by the Appellate Authority would show that, adm ittedly, no evidence was led to prove the guilt of the delinquent. The Disciplin ary Authority while taking action on the inquiry report exercising power under R ule 15 of the Rules 1965, failed to act on the mandatory provisions whereby it h as been specifically spelt out that the Disciplinary Authority shall act having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charges and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry shall impose any of the penalties sp ecified in Rule 11 of the Rules 1965. In the instant case, where no evidence was led during the inquiry how the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty of rem oval from service which is attributed as total non-application of mind and the l earned Tribunal is justified in interfering with the impugned award of penalty i mposed upon the delinquent after holding perfunctory nature of inquiry. 8. Another factor is required to be considered as to whether the Appellate Authority is justified in affirming the order of removal. The case in hand is re gulated under Rules 1965 and, therefore, the requirement of Rule 27(2) must be c omplied with. The word consider in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 27 implies due applica tion of mind. In the present case, there is no indication in the appellate order that the Appellate Authority was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid dow n in the Rules had been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance h as resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Authority has also not give n any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the Discipli nary Authority were warranted by the evidence on record. There being non-complia nce with the requirement of Rule 27(2) of the Rules 1965, the impugned order pas sed by the Appellate Authority requires interference which the learned Tribunal has rightly done. 9. Considering the matter in its entirety and in view of the discussion mad e hereinabove, we find no perversity in the judgment and order passed by the lea rned Tribunal since the entire inquiry was conducted in perfunctory way and the fair play in action demands that no interference is called for while exercising the power under certiorari jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. The parties are left to bear their own costs.