1 2025:CGHC:31422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6639 of 2018 Sarwar Ali S/o Late Shri Nathuni Hussain Aged About 52 Years R/o Loriya Colliery, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through C.M.D. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief General Manager South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Chirmiri Area, (S.E.C.L.), District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub-Area Manager Dumanhill Collery, (S.E.C.L.), Chirmiri, District- Koria, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Advocates HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.11 12:02:14 +0530 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08.07 .2025 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05/03/2018 passed by respondent No. 1 by which petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed affirming the order of his termination dated 07/01/2017 passed by respondent No. 3. 2. Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed simply affirming the order of his termination holding that there is no reason to interfere with the order of punishment and as such, the appeal has not been considered and decided on merits and has been dismissed by passing a mechanical order, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside and matter be remitted to the appellate authority to decide it afresh in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned order and submit that the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner affirming the order of his termination and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 07/01/2017 passed by respondent No. 3 against which he preferred an appeal whereby the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 1 cataloged the facts of the case and thereafter, in one paragraph held that there is no reason to interfere with the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and proceeded to dismiss the appeal whereas the appellate authority was required to consider whether the procedure laid down in the Standing Order has been complied with in the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner and whether or not there is compliance of principles of natural justice, which has not been considered. The appellate authority also ought to have considered whether the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is adequate or severe and only thereafter, the impugned order ought to have been passed by the appellate authority by assigning appropriate reasons for dismissing his appeal. 6. It is settled position of law that the appellate authority in a disciplinary proceeding acts in a quasi-judicial capacity 4 and the order passed by it has to be a reasoned one showing application of mind to the question raised by the appellant and if that is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. Since in the instant case, it appears that the appellate authority has not applied its mind and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner, the impugned order dated 05/03/2018 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to the appellate authority to consider petitioner’s case afresh on merits and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet