lw—-:-s^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. W.A.No.72/2009 Apoellant (Petitioner) Ressiondents Vs. 1 2. 3. 4. Bhupnarayan Dhritiahare, aged - 39 years, S/6. Likhanta Dhritiahare, Ex Constabie No.201, R/o. Vi!!age Dongerideeh, Poiice Station Kasdoi, District Raipur (CG) State "f Ghhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department or Police and Home Affaii-s.DKS Bhavan, Raipur The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur (CG) The Inspector Genera! of Police, Raipur Region, Raipur The Superintendent of Poiice, Rajnandgaon (CG) Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani with Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel ft>r the appellant. Shri A.S. Kachhvraha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. '^ 1. ORAL O RDE R (08.02.2011) The appe!!ant was working as a constable. His services were terminated by order dated 31st December, 2007 (Annexure-P/3) on account "f his unauthorized absence without prior permission of the authorities. Before terminating the appel!ant from the sen/ice, charge sheet W3S iscued any thereafter enquiry was conducted in which the •*»1 'sa; 2 o ^- appellant participated. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the enquin/ report terminated the appellant from the service. The appel'ant's appea! was again dismissed by inspector Genera! of Police vide Annexure-P/4 affirming the order passed by Disciplinary Authority. Writ petition against the order of Appellate Authority was again dismissed by learned Si"g!e Judge by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the order of Appeliate Authority (Annexure-P/4) vehemently argued that the appea! has been dismissed withoutassign'ng any brief reason. Re'ying upon the decision of Hon'b'e Supreme Court in the matters of Cha'rman, D'scsplinary Authority, Ran' Lakshmf Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806, it was argued that even where the order of Disc'plinary Authority is subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority, the Appel!ate Authority is required to assjgn reasons at least in brief, so that "ne can know whether the Appellate Authority has applied its mind whi!e affirming theorder of Disciptinary Authority. On the other hand, learned counse! for the State argued that teamed Singte Judge, after elaborately considering the pleadings of the respective parties, enquiry report and submissions made on behalfof the parties and after rsferring to the legal submission of tearned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, hasobsen/ed that it cannot be held that the Appellate Authority has not given any brief reason while agreeing with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. From perusdl.of the order ofAppellate Authority, it wou'd be evident that the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the ^ enquiry report, service book and censidering the para wise comments of Superintendent of Police and a!so considering the past conduct of the appellant, has "bserved that no any specia! facts were brought to his notice warranting reconsideratiQn in impQsitton of penalty and accprdingiy affirmed the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Erarties. Perused the records as a!so the impugned order passed bythe iearned Single Judge. 5. The on!y ground urged by Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Appe'late AuthQrity has dismissed the appea! of the appetlant without assigning any reason in brief to indicate that the Appellate Authority has applied its mind for deciding the appeal. HQwever, aftergoing through the order QfAppellate Authority, we are in agreemeRt with the Qbservation of learned Sing!e Judge that it Gannot be he'd that the Appellate Authority has not given any reason in brief while affirming th§order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The law laid down by the HQn'b!e Supreme Court in the mattersof Jagdish Sharan (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Learned Single Judge, after eiaborately CQnsidering the material avai'able on record as also thelegalsubmission made by learned counsel for the parties, has rightly dismissed the petition. 6. We do not find any substanee in the appeal. There is no'!lega!ity or infirmity in the impugned order. The appea! being wjthout any merit desen/es to be and is, aocQrdingly, dismjssed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- ^.CHANWAKAR. Judge 'f'