The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate authority to pass a speaking order dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal and the importance of considering all the grounds of appeal before deciding an appeal.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent dated 26.03.2010 and the order passed by the first respondent, the appellant authority, dated 26.05.2010, confirming the order of the second respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a police constable in the year 2008. Certain charges have been leveled against him. After framing charges and after holding enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the order of the second respondent dated 26.03.2010. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent raising more than nine grounds. While so, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 26.05.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging those orders.

3. The learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent has passed a non-speaking order without dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal preferred before him. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26.05.2010, is liable to be set aside. He has relied on the decision reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1382 (K. Kandasamy v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli and Another) and other decision rendered by this Court.

4. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the first respondent has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and thereafter has passed the impugned order confirming the order of the second respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first respondent has not considered the several grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. In order to appreciate the said contention, it would be useful to extract the order that has been passed by the first respondent in paragraph 5.

“5. I have carefully gone through the P.R. file, appeal petition on PC 3037 Sureshkumar and other connected records. The appellant has not put forth any fresh points in his appeal petition. The appellant had and illegal intimacy with one Vanitha, D/o. Durai of Athuvali Village, Tirunelveli District. Based on the complaint preferred by Vanitha a case was registered against the PC 3037 Sureshkumar in Vasudevanallur P.S. Cr.No.187 of 2009 u/s. 417, 420, 376, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and read with 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act on 17.08.2009. The appellant has spoiled the image of the police. Hence I agree with the findings of the enquiry officer I declined to interfere in this PR file. Hence, the appeal petition is rejected.”

The above extracted order shows that the first respondent has not considered the several grounds raised by the petitioner. In fact the grounds of appeal enclosed in the typed set of papers reveals that the petitioner has raised more than 9 grounds to set aside the order passed by the second respondent. Thus, I am of the considered view that the first respondent has passed the impugned order without dealing with the points raised by the petitioner.

7. This Court has held that when an appeal has been preferred questioning the order of the original authority, the appellate authority is expected to pass a speaking order dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal. However, the first respondent has not passed a speaking order. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the order made by this Court in the judgment reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1382 (K. Kandasamy v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli and Another) is usefully extracted hereunder:

“7. It is seen from the aforesaid portion