1 WPS No. 2990 of 2016 2025:CGHC:1796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2990 of 2016  Dharam Singh Markam S/o Late Pati Ram Markam, aged about 49 years, Post Constable No. 332, R/o Village Jhalam, Post Andhiyarkhor, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/01/2025 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against order dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Appellate Authority/respondent No.2 herein ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.15 16:15:24 +0530 2 WPS No. 2990 of 2016 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police/respondent No.2 herein whereby the petitioner has been terminated, has been rejected. 2. Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the order of termination, was required to be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1966'), which has not been done in this case and straightway the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed, which is not in consonance with Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966, as such, the order of the Appellate Authority deserves to be set-aside and the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the impugned orders are strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 3 WPS No. 2990 of 2016 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 which provides as under:- "27. Consideration of appeal.-(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider,- (a) whether the procedure down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass orders- (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case....” 4 WPS No. 2990 of 2016 6. It is well settled position of law that the Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceeding acts in in quasi-judicial capacity and order passed has to be reasoned one and showing application of mind to the question raised by the appellant and if it is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. (See Divisional Forest officer, Kothagudem and others V. Madhusudhan Rao 1 ). 7. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by observing that an Appellate Authority by deciding statutory appeal is not only required to give hearing to the Government servant, but pass a reasoned order dealing with the contention raised in the appeal. (See: Deokinandan Sharma V. Union of India and others 2 ). 8. Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the Disciplinary Authority, it may not be speaking order, but the Authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind in compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction particularly when the rules require application of mind on several factors and several contentions have been raised and he was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the 1 (2008) 3 SCC 469 2 (2001) 5 SCC 340 5 WPS No. 2990 of 2016 Court reviewing its decision to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the rules require him to do. (See: Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 3 ). 9. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966 and not assigned any cogent reason as to whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are justified or not and punishment is appropriate or excessive and it requires interference. As such, the Appellate Authority has failed to perform its duty in deciding the appeal in accordance with Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966. Even otherwise, the Appellate Authority has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 10. In that view of the matter, the appellate order dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to consider each and every ground raised by the petitioner in his appeal and decide the appeal afresh in light of Rule 27(2) of 3 (2006) 4 SCC 713 6 WPS No. 2990 of 2016 the Rules of 1966 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to raise additional ground, if any, supported by the documents before the Appellate Authority, which shall be considered by the Appellate Authority. 11. The writ petition is allowed is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost (s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit