PETITIONER ESPONDENTS M Limited, Raipur IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘ AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (smo. EL” ._ ./ CI OF 2011 : /’ Dwarika Prasad Suryawanshi Aged — 54 years, Son of Late Praja Ram Suryawanshi, Junior Assistant (removed) At ~ District Office, C. G. State Civil SuppHes Corporation, Janjgir, District — Janjgir — Champa (c. G.) T R/o Jarhabhatha, Mandir Chowk, Biiaspur, District — Biiaspur (C. G.) Versus /,:1. C. G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Through ~ The Chairman / Appeiiate Authority, Bai Ashram Campus, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (C. G.) . The Managing Director, C. G. State Civii Suppiies Corporation Limited, Bai Ashram Campus, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (C. G.) . shri M. N. Prasad Rao Generai Manager/ Enquiry Officer C. G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bal Ashram Campus, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Petition Uner Article —- 226 of Constitution of Ingia HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILFL$PUR SINGLE EENCH :W HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Writ l’etition (S) Na.659/2011 Aggearance: ‘* Shri RK. Kesharwa11i, counsel for tha petitianer. None for respondents men after service of notice. ORAL~ORDER (Passed on 23.6.20 1 1) Heard. 1‘ Leamed counsel for the petitioner aesails the cerrecmess and vaiidity ef impugned order dated 29.10.2010 passsed by the Appeiiate Authority, on the sole submission that the order dismissing the appeal records no reasons whatsoever. He submits that the Appeilate Authority, acting in quasi—judicial capacity, is required to record reasons and consider the grounds which have been. raised by the petitioner in his appeal against the order of penaity. it is aleo submitted that. the respondents-Corporation has framed rules known as CG. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Ciassnl, ii, III (it IV) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules of 2005’). Rule 2'2 of the Rules of PETITIONER Dwarika Prasad Suryawanshj Versus RESPONBENTS CG. Stata Civil} Suppiies Corporation Limited, Raipur 85 01‘s. 2005 provides that the provision of M.P./C‘G. Civil Senzices (Classification, Comm} 81, Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “the of 1966”) shall be applicable to all the employees. Learned Rules counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision contained in Rule ’27 of the Rules of 1966 obliges the Appellate Authority to duly consider the grounds raised in the appeal and record reasons as required under the provision of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966, which has not been done in the present case. He placed reliance on the decision m the ease of Sonii‘am Dhruv Vs. State ¥ of C.G. and Ors. [WR (S)l367 of 2005] decided on 5th February, 2010. Court, in the case of Soniram Dhruv (supra), after 2. This considering the provision contained in Rule 27 of the Rules of held as under: 196$, “11. It is well seiiled that the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal acts in quasi-judicial capacity. Relevant provision contained in CG, Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 for consideration of an appeal are as under:— 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 9 and having legend to the cimumstances 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 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall considerz~ (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with. and if not, whethm‘ such non- compliancs has msulted in the violation of emy provisions of tho Constitution of India or in the failuxe ofjustice; (b) whethor the iindings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by tho evidence on the records; and (C) whether the penalty or enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass orders~ (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside " (ii) remitting The case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penal’tyeor to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” the penalty; or 12. Appellate Authority is therefore obliged under the law to exercise its statutory power of appeal in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules 27 of the Rules of 1§66. Consequently, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, Appellate Authority is duty bound to exercise the same in the manner prescribed in Rule 2'7 (2) of the Rules of 1966. Rules mandatorily require the Appellate Authority to consider whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with and if not Whether such non-compliance resulted in violation of any provision of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; Whether findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record and Whether the penalty imposed is adequateb inadequate or severe. The Appellate Authority is therefore under statutory obligations to consider the appeal in the manner as laid down in the Rules as aforesaid and then may confirm enhance, reduce or set aside the penalty or remit the case to the Authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other Authority with such direction as deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The scheme of Rule: 27 therefore clearly implies that the Appellate Authority has to paSS speaking order indicau‘ng that points raised by the petitioner has been considered. In case the objection of the petitioner is not acceptable he has to give the reasons for not accepting the same. It is thus the duty of Authon‘ty to apply its mind While deciding the appeal and he is obliged to give clear finding on the charges of the penalty. The powers of Authority being quasi-judicial in nature are required to be performed in all seriousness with a View to do justice with the appellant” 12. The petitioner submitted a representation on 20th November, 20 10 (Annexure P— 15), pursuant to which, he has been supplied a copy of the minutes of meeting dated 29th October, 2O 10, which records in one line that the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The order is non—speaking and nothing has been stated therein. 13. In View of what has been discussed hereinabove, even While affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority is required to record reasons, at least in brief, in order to Show that due application of mind had taken place to various ground which are urged in the appeal. However, the manner in which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed clearly reflects total non~application of mind. The action of the respondents in dismissing the appeal therefore cannot be sustained and the decision taken by the respondents in their meeting dated 29. 10.20 10, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is declared illegal. The appeal filed by the petitioner shall be considered by the Appellate Authority of respondent—Corporation Praveeu in accordance the provision contamed in Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 and in the light of observations madta by this Court in the case of Soniram Dhruv (supra), within a period of 3 months from fhé date of reooipt of copy of this order. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. NO order as to costs. Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge