Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Removal From service - Disqualification - Appellate authority in disciplinary proceeding acts in quasi judicial capacity and order passed has to be reasoned one and showing application of mind to question raised by appellant and if it is not done, appellate order is vitiated.

ORDER :

1. Proceedings of this matter have been takenup through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner was removed from service without being disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(i) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter called as 'Regulations 1976') by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P3), against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority in terms of Regulation 17 of the Regulations 1976. By the order dated 16.1.2010 (Annexure P2) the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority.

Review petition has also been preferred by the petitioner. Review petition has also been dismissed by the Reviewing Authority by order dated 2.11.2010. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the aforesaid orders.

3. Mr.Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though Regulation 17(ii) of the Regulations 1976 clearly provides the manner of disposal of appeal by holding that the findings of the disciplinary authority are justified and punishment is proper or not, but nothing has been considered and simply agreeing with the finding of the disciplinary authority, appeal has been dismissed and similarly, review petition has also been dismissed, as such, the orders of the appellate authority and the reviewing authority deserve to be setaside and the matter be remitted to the appellate authority for considering the appeal afresh.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. True, it is that the order of the disciplinary authority was questioned by the petitioner by way of appeal in terms of Regulation 17(ii) of the Regulations 1976. Regulation 17 of the Regulations 1976 states as under:

“17. APPEALS:

i. An officer employee may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 or against the order of suspension referred to in Regulation 12. The appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority.

ii. An appeal shall be preferred within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority and submitted the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case:

Provided that

i. If the enhanced penalty which the Appellate Authority proposed to impose a major penalty specified in Clauses (f), (g),(h),(i) and (j) of Regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided in Regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Appellate Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provision of regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper.

ii. If the Appellate Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held as provided in Regulation 6, the Appellate Authority shall give a show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee.”

7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Regulation would show that manner of consideration of ap