9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition was filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 1157 of 2002 allowing the same and directing that the respondent herein be reinstated in service. 4. From the materials as disclosed, it appears that the respondent herein was appointed as a "Forester" on 7.4.1994 and was posted in Section Komararam from 7.4.1994 to 24.8.1996. According to the appellants, during the said period the appellant was advanced funds to carry out different works under the Andhra Pradesh Forestry Project. Despite having received such funds, he did not undertake the said work and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the following charges: "1. (a) Neglect of duty wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and a show cause notice was issued to the respondent in terms of Rule 37(2)(v) directing him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. Upon considering the reply submitted by the respondent, the Conservator of Forests passed order dated 11.7.2001 dismissing the respondent from service. 6. A revision petition filed by the respondent before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh was partly allowed by his order dated 19.11.2001 to the extent that the order of "dismissal from service" was modified to "removal from service". It may be indicated that neither the Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam, nor the Chief Conservator of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Government to consult the Public Service Commission in case of passing an order of removal from service, such consultation does not appear to have taken place as the counter affidavit filed was silent in that regard. 10. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal concluded that the appellate authority had not exercised its independent discretion while awarding the enhanced punishment of removal from service. 11. The reasoning of the Administrative Tribunal was duly considered and endorsed by the High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein. The High Court observed that although the appellate authority had the power to enhance the punishment, it was also the duty of the appellate authority to consider th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on to observe further that even while differing with the order of the lower forum, the State Government was merely required to give reasons why it differs though it was not necessary that such reasons should be detailed or elaborate. The conclusion arrived at by the Constitution Bench was that where the State Government agrees with the findings of the Tribunal which are against the delinquent officer, it could not be said as a matter of law that the State Government could not impose penalty against the delinquent officer in accordance with the findings of the Tribunal, unless it gave reasons to show why the said findings were accepted by it. 14. In this regard reference was also made to two other decisions of this Court; (i) Som Datt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cing the punishment without giving any reasons therefor. He also urged that non supply of the Enquiry Officer's Report was another fatal defect under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules. He urged that the order of the High Court did not warrant any interference and the appeal was liable to be dismissed. 16. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy referred to the decision of this Court in R.P. Bhatt Vs. Union of India & ors. [(1986) 2 S.C.C. 651] wherein it was observed that while considering an appeal against an order enhancing any penalty under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, requirements of Rule 27(2) must be complied with and consideration would mean a finding of satisfaction as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service. 19. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
