DIVL. FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAGUDEM & ORS. versus MADHUSUDHAN RAO

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 08-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008) 2 S.C.R 610 
DIVL. FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAGUDEM & ORS. 
V. 
MADHUSUDHAN RAO 
(Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 8, 2008 
(A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.). 
Service Law: 
Misconduct - Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment 
C imposed -Appeal and I or revision - Requirement of reasoned 
order by appellate I revisional authority while confirming the 
order passed by lower forum - Held: In the interests of justice, 
the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of 
the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal 
D and I or revision - Though no detailed reasons are required 
to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even 
in an order affirming the views of the lower forum - Andhra 
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1991 - rr.18(2), 37(2). 
E 
Respondent was appointed as a "Forester". 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the 
charge of embezzlement of Government funds. The 
disciplinary authority viz the Divisional Forest Officer 
found Respondent guilty and imposed upon him the 
F punishment of stoppage of annual increments etc. 
Respondent filed appeal. The appellate authority viz the 
Conservator of Forests, enhanced the punishment by 
dismissing Respondent from service. Revision petition 
filed by the Respondent before the Chief Conservator of 
G Forests was partly allowed to the extent that the order of 
"dismissal from service" was modified to "removal from 
service". Respondent moved the Administrative Tribunal 
which set aside the orders passed by the authorities 
H 
below holding that they did not exercise their independent 
610 
DIVL. FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAGUDEM & ORS. v. 
611 
MADHUSUDHAN RAO 
~ 
discretion while awarding enhanced punishment. The A 
.....,.,...-
High Court held that although the appellate authority had . 
the power to enhance the punishment, it was also the duty 
of the appellate authority to consider the grounds and 
then only to reject the appeal. Holding that in the same 
proceeding, the appellate authority enhanced the B 
punishment without considering the grounds raised by 
~ the respondents, which was illegal and contrary to law, 
~ the Court dismissed the Writ· Petition filed by the 
appellants. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended that while c 
confirming an order, against which an appeal has been 
preferred, the appellate authority was not required to pass 
a reasoned order since the order impugned was before 
him and he was merely endorsing the same. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
-* 
HELD: 1.1. Having considered the submissions 
~ 
made on behalf of the respective parties and also having 
regard to the detailed manner in which the Administrative 
Tribunal had dealt with the matter, including the 
explanation given regarding the disbursement of the E 
money received by the respondent, there is no reason to 
differ with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal 
and endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional 
Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but it was also F 
_...._ 
the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some 
reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the 
respondent. A similar duty was cast on the revisional 
authority being the highest authority in the Department 
of Forests in the State.· Even the revisional authority 
merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest G 
"' 
Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, 
Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was 
clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case 
as made out by the respondent and simply endorsed the 
punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal H 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A from service. (Para 18] [618-D-H] 
1.2. An appellate or revisional authority is not 
required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and 
confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in 
. the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled. to 
8 know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional 
authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is 
true that no de~ailed reasons are required to be given, t 
but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an 
order affirming the views. of the lower forum. [Para 19] 
C [619-A-B] 
. State of Madras vs. A.R. Srinivasan AIR 1966 S.C.1827; 
Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1969 2 S.C.R. 177; 
Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal Corpo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.