The petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Executive Engineer under the Assam State Electricity Board. He was placed under suspension and under Regulation 10 of the Assam Electricity Board General Service Regulation, 1960, he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed or other-wise punished for the charges framed as per Memo dated 18th September, 1973. The petitioner showed cause and the departmental proceeding resulted in holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges; and as a sequel there to by order of the Chairman of the Board, dated 20-2-76 the penalty of termination of employment was imposed on him, and the suspension order was also confirmed and the period of his suspen­sion was deemed to be absence from duties.

2. From the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 19.3.76 before the Assam State Electricity Board. Admittedly, appeal lies under the provision of the regulation. The appeal has been rejected vide Memo dated 23rd September 1976 (Annexure 13) to the petition, which reads :

"I am directed to invite a reference to your appeal petition dated 19.3.76 before the Assam State Electricity Board and to say that the Board has carefully considered the appeal petition and has found no valid ground for re-consideration. The appeal has been rejected and the original decision stands."

The petitioner thereafter sought a copy of the resolution to which the Board replied that the question of sending the copy of the Board's resolution relating to the petitioner's appeal did not arise. The communication dated 23.9.76 (Annexure 13) has, therefore, to be regarded as the appellate order, Ex-facie the appellate order does not give any reason for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. It does not show that the appellate authority applied its mind to the grounds urged in the petitiner's appeal. On the basis of this order it is not possible for this court to have any idea as to on what grounds the peti­tioner's appeal was rejected or for that matter whether the grounds urged in the appeal were considered according to law.

3. In R. P. Bhatt vs. Union of India AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1040, the facts of which were more or less similar, the appeal was dismissed observing :

"After thorough examination of the facts brought out in the appeal, the DGBR is of the opinion that the punishment imposed by the CE(P) Dentak vide his order No. 10527/762/EIB dated June 24, 78 was just and in accordance to the Rules applicable. He has accordingly rejected the appeal."

In that case rule 27(2) of the rules provided that the appeal was to be considered. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held the word 'consider' in the said rule implied 'due application of mind' and the rule itself stated what points were to be considered by the appellate authority. In para 5 of the report it was observed :

''There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director General was satisfied as the whether the procedure laid down in the Rules have been complied with ; and if not, whether such non-compliance had resulted in vio­lation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director-General has also not given the finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of Cl. (c) of Rule 27(2) viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Rules 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director-General is liable to be set aside."

4. Applying the above ratio to the facts in the instant case, we find that there is no indication as to whether the appellate authority applied its mind to the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, and no reasons are given for rejecting the appeal. There is also nothing to show as to whether the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document