9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to appellate order in service removal case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Applicability of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Compliance with Rule 27 of the Rules in appellate proceedings. Adequacy of reasoning in appellate orders. Comparison with a similar case precedent. Analysis: The judgment concerns a petition challenging an appellate order in a service removal case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a former Projectionist, was removed from service based on proven charges of misconduct related to false attendance records and facilitating inflated payments. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal after due consideration of inquiry findings and the petitioner's response. The petitioner appealed this decision under Rule 27 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, which mandates the appellate authority to assess procedural compliance, evidentiary support, and the adequacy of the penalty imposed. The High Court noted that the appellate authority failed to address the requirements of Rule 27 in a mechanical and inadequate manner. The court emphasized the importance of the appellate authority considering procedural compliance, evidentiary support, and penalty adequacy, as stipulated in the rules. The court referenced a previous case to highlight the significance of proper appellate review, stressing the need for thorough consideration of the appeal grounds and compliance with procedural rules. The judgment highlighted the appellate authority's failure to provide a reasoned decision, as required by the rules. The court found the appellate order lacking in proper assessment of evidence and the petitioner's appeal grounds. Consequently, the court deemed the appellate order unsustainable in law and quashed it. The court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence and thorough review. In conclusion, the petition challenging the appellate order was allowed, and the court directed the appellate authority to reevaluate the appeal within a specified timeframe. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance, evidentiary assessment, and reasoned decision-making in appellate proceedings related to service removal cases under the applicable rules and legal principles.
|
