Chairman, D.A.,Rani Lakshmi Bai ... vs Jagdish Sharan Varshney And Ors on 26 March, 2009
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
various contentions raised in the appeal filed by the petitioners have not
been considered, when Ext.P16 order was passed and that the appellate
authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Relying on the
decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani
Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and
others (2009(4) SCC 240) the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the appellate authority was required to give reasons, though
briefly, while confirming the decision of the appellate authority. He submits
that in the instant case, apart from merely permitting the petitioners to remit
the sum of Rs.45,000/- in 12 equal monthly instalments, the appellate
authority has not even considered the challenge to Exts.P10 and P11 orders
whereby the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative
effect was imposed on the petitioners. A reading of Ext.P.14 appeal
discloses that the petitioners had in the appeal challenged the imposition of
penalty and also the direction to recover the sum of Rs.45,000/- from them.
However, the appellate authority has not dealt with the various contentions
W.P.(C) No. 35361/08 3
raised by the petitioners regarding the imposition of the penalty of barring
of two increments with cumulative effect. I am therefore satisfied that the
appellate authority has failed to consider the various contentions raised by
the petitioners on the merits.