R.P. BHATT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 14-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

947 
R.P. BHATT 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
B 
December 14, 1982 
[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAlrRISHNA ERADI, JJ.J 
The Central CM/ SerVices Classification, Control •nd Appeal) Rules 1965. 
C 
Rule 27(2)-'Conslder'-lnterpretatlon of. 
Duty of appellate authority-To con3ider releFant factorJ Set forth In 
clauses (a) to (c). 
Constitution of India 1950 : Article 311(2)-Disciplinary proceeding1-
A.ppellate authority-Whether required to give reasons/or its order. 
The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 
1965 by Rule 27 casts a duty on the Appellate Authority in the case of an 
appeal against an order impasing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 to 
consider: (a) whether the procedure laid down in the rules has been complied 
with: and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any 
of the provisions of the Constiution or in the failure of justice (b) whether the 
findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; 
and fc) whether the penalty imposed is adequate and thereafter pass orders 
confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or remit back the case to the authority 
which imposed the same. 
The appellant was appointed as Supervisor in 
the Border Roads 
Organisation on probation for a period of two years. Before the expiry of the 
probation period, the Chief Engineer terminated this services. The order of 
termination however could not be served as the appellant abser:ted himself 
without leave. He was later transferred and the Officer Commanding forwarded 
the order of termination to him. On his representation the Director-General 
canceJled the order of termination on a misapprehension that the period of 
probation having expired no order of termination could be made. He, however, 
directed that the talcing of disciplinary action against him as a deserter since he 
had absconded from service to evade service of the termination order. After a 
regular departmental enquiry, he was served with 
a show-cause notice under 
Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and after considerati0n of his representation, the 
Chief Engineer imposed the 
punishment of removal from service 
under 
Rule 12 read with Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control 
and Appeal) Rules 196S. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
~48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) SUPPL. S.C.R 
Tho appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules preferred by the appellant was 
A 
dismissed by the Director.General observing, that 'after thorough examination 
of the facts brought out in the appeal, the punishment imposed upon the 
appellant was just and in accordance with the rules'. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
The writ petition having been dismissed in limine the appellant appealed 
by special leave to this court. 
Allowing the appeal 
HELD : The word 'consider' in Rule 27(2) implies 'due application of 
mind'. [951AJ 
In the instant case, there is no indication in the order that the Director .. 
General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had 
been complied with. No finding has been given on the crucial question as to 
whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the 
evidence on record. [951 CJ 
2. The Director-General only applied his mind to the requirements of 
clause (c) of Rules 27 (2) viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or 
justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
Rule 27(2) casts a duty 
on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses 
(a), (b) and (c) thereof. 
[9511!] 
3. There being non compliance with the requirements ct Rule 27(2) of 
the Rules, the order passed by the Director-General is set aside. He is directed 
to dispose of the appeal afresh after applying his mind to the requirements or 
Rule 27(2) of the Rules. U951E; 953EJ 
4. lt is not the requirement of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India 
or of the Rules of natural justice that in every case the appeUate authority 
1hould in its order state its own reasons except where the appellate authority 
disagrees with the findings of the disciplinary authority. [951FJ 
State of Madras v. A.P. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827; Som Dalt Datta v. 
V.0.1. and Ors., [196912 SCR 176 and Tara Chand Khatri v, Municipal Corpora· 
tion of Delhi and OrS, AIR 1977 SC 567, referred to. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cTION ; Civil Appeal No. 3165 of 
1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20 .. \ 1.198Q Qf tl\~ Delhi 
High Co1,1rt iµ Writ P~tition No. 1632 of 198

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