9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The appeal involves determining whether the appellate Order passed by the Director-General, Border Roads Organisation complies with the requirements of r. 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Comprehensive Details of the Judgment: The appellant, appointed as Supervisor (Barracks & Stores) Grade I, was terminated from service by the Chief Engineer but absconded before receiving the termination order. Subsequently, the Director-General cancelled the termination order and directed disciplinary action against the appellant for desertion. After a departmental inquiry, the appellant was removed from service. The appellant appealed this decision under r. 23 of the Rules to the Director-General, who upheld the removal order without proper consideration of r. 27(2) requirements. The Supreme Court highlighted that r. 27(2) mandates the appellate authority to consider procedural compliance, evidence validity, and adequacy of the penalty imposed. The Court found that the Director-General failed to assess whether the Rules were followed, the evidence supported the findings, and if the penalty was appropriate. As a result, the Court set aside the Director-General's order due to non-compliance with r. 27(2) and directed a fresh disposal of the appeal. Regarding the necessity of reasons in appellate orders, the Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing that while reasons are not mandatory in every case, they may be required if the appellate authority disagrees with the disciplinary authority's findings. The Court cited cases where the absence of detailed reasons in support of orders did not render them illegal, reinforcing that statutory tribunals are not always obligated to provide reasons for their decisions. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, overturned the Director-General's order, and instructed a reconsideration of the appeal with adherence to r. 27(2) requirements. No costs were awarded in this matter. Judgment Highlight: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Director-General's order, and directed a fresh disposal of the appeal with proper consideration of r. 27(2) requirements.
|
