Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On the same charge which was levelled against the petitioner in the criminal Court as noted above, however, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and, in that enquiry, the petitioner was penalized with penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the RCS (CCA) Rules. After issuance of the charge- sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on 07.11.1991, the petitioner filed his detailed reply to the charge-sheet. Along with the reply, the petitioner made a representation for staying the departmental enquiry while the criminal case was pending for the same charge in the criminal Court; but, no heed was paid by the respondents and the departmental enquiry was continued simultaneously. During the course of the enquiry, 13 witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and, in defence, the petitioner led evidence of 9 witnesses. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued show- cause notice on 13.01.1994 asking the petitioner to submit explanation to the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner filed his representation against the conclusion of the enquiry report dated 30.01.1994 stating that he was not given reasonable opportunity in the enquiry. The petitioner also pointed out that the representations were filed for supplying documents but the grounds raised by him were turned down and finally the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.12.1994. A review petition was also filed by the petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.1996. Hence the present writ petition.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of the appellate authority is perverse and vitiated on the ground that it has been passed without due application of mind and without assigning reasons for maintaining the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority of extreme penalty of dismissal from service.

12. It is submitted that Rule 30 of the RCS (CCA) Rules, 1958 requires that the appellate authority while considering the appeal must appreciate whether the procedure prescribed in the rules has been complied with; whether the penalty imposed is warranted on the basis of the evidence available on record and is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged. It is contended that the appellate authority has not appreciated the evidence on record with a view to deciding about the sustainability of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that all these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority and, therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed.