Jogendra Chandra Das v. Union of India — 1989 DIGILAW 246 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Majumder, J. : The appeal arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below on April 26, 1979 is at the instance of the writ petitioner. Before the determination of the issue involves in the appeal, it is appropriate for this Court to refer to the fact that on the prayer of Mr. Ajoy Kumar Bose, the learned Advocate for the respondents. The Court allowed the revisional Order dated 19. 12. 79 passed by the Chief Security Officer to be filed and treated as part of the record of the case. 2. The broad facts of the case are stated as follows :– Shri Jogendra Chandra Das, (for short the appellant hereafter was served with the Memorandum dated May 16/19, 1973 together with statement of Charge and statement of imputation of misconduct. The said Memorandum was issued by the Asstt. Security Officer. The appellant was charged for serious neglect on duty that while on duty from 16 hours to 24 hours on June 17, 1972 along with Rakshak 1661 L. S. Lama in beat No. 29 outside Kharagpur Workshop he failed to prevent or detect removal of railway materials by a gang of criminals who removed railway materials from wagons which were drawn out from the Bhusi Gate for shunting operation at about 20/10 hours of the aforesaid date. 3. The appellant claims to be an illiterate constable. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the appellant being incapable of understanding English language through the help of his friend asked for copy of the statement of witnesses. The said prayer, was made on August 31, 1973, for the purpose of making necessary reply to the charge-sheet and for any other representation, the appellant took the help of Sri U. P. Upadhay, Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. It is, claimed that Sri Upadhay was one of his defence helpers. Copies of statements as prayed for the appellant were not furnished to him, nor the appellant had any opportunity to know or to contradict the statements of witnesses who were examined behind his back. It appears that on July 20, 1973 the appellant was allowed to take come extracts from the relevant records. The appellant through Sri Upadhay submitted his explanation to the charges on July 10, 1973. The appellant denied the charges by contending inter alia, that the same "are false and frivolous". It appears that on July 20, 1973 the appellant was allowed to take come extracts from the relevant records. The appellant through Sri Upadhay submitted his explanation to the charges on July 10, 1973. The appellant denied the charges by contending inter alia, that the same "are false and frivolous". The enquiry into charges was commenced, continued and concluded. The appellant submitted his written statement of defence in which he inter alia, stated that : 1. The R. O. party member stated that he was not in good terms with the R. P. F. Staff. 2. He did not disclose the names of the originals to the Police for reasons best known to him. 3. PW-2 did not notice anybody excepting the R.P.F Staff though the shunting staff were present there. There is motive behind it. 4. The night in question was a dark one and heavily raining. 5. S. I. J. K. Ghosh was present at the shunting operation. The Enquiry Officer submitted a finding to the Asstt. Secretary holding inter alia, the appellant guilty of the charge. The conclusionary paragraph of the enquiry report is quoted below : "What he said in the written defence is all true. But on the other hand, the theft of iron materials is also true. The theft was possible due to his connivance with the criminals or to due to his gross neglect of duty. Connivance cannot be proved beyond doubt. Hence, stands the gross neglect of duty resulting in the theft. The stolen properties of 17.6.72 were recovered by PW-1 on 18.6.72 during raid and search. Hence, the charge stands proved and I hold the delinquent guilty of the charge." "The case file is returnable herewith the relevant documents." 4. The Assistant Security Officer forwarded the proceedings to the Security Officer, Kharagpur, for awarding suitable punishment in view of the gravity of the offence as the appellant was appointed by a Senior Scale Officer. The Security Officer, Kharagpur, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and decided to impose the punishment of removal from service on the appellant and accordingly, a notice to show cause dated 8.10.74 was served upon the appeal. The Security Officer while issuing the show-cause notice passed the following order : "On receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, ASO-KGP bad appointed C. C. 'C' Coy Sri R.K. Murthy to enquire into the charge. The Security Officer while issuing the show-cause notice passed the following order : "On receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, ASO-KGP bad appointed C. C. 'C' Coy Sri R.K. Murthy to enquire into the charge. The E. O. submitted his findings on 13.9.73 in which he had opined that charge against the delinquent RSK having been proved, be held the delinquent guilty of the charge. ASO-KGP having received the findings had forwarded the case to SO/KGP for awarding a suitable punishment considering the gravity of the offence and being guilty of the charge. The delinquent RSK was appointed by a Sr. Scale Officer. I have carefully gone though the depositions and other relevant records of the case as well as the findings of the S. O. and do find that the charge has been established against the delinquent RSK. As the delinquent RSK has been found guilty of a serious offence, I have provisionally decided to remove the delinquent RSK, from service and order issue of a show cause notice against removal in prescribed form." 5. The Security Officer did not receive any reply from the appellant within the stipulated period i. e., November 25, 1974 nor till November 26, 1974 on which date the final order removing the appellant from service was passed by the Security Officer, Kharagpur. By a letter dated November 20, 1974, the appellant recorded that there was some delay in replying to the show cause notice as he lost all copies of statements of prosecution witnesses. 6. Against the final order thus passed, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Chief Security Officer. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The appellant did not file any revisional petition. 7. Mr. Bose produced the records of the case. It appears from the records that the Disciplinary Authority sent his parawise remarks in respect of the appeal of the appellant. The said parawise remarks read thus :– "The appeal petition of the above named in sent herewith along with my remarks parawise. The petitioner was charged for serious neglect of duty and in the departmental enquiry the charges against him were fully proved. ASO/KGP accepted the findings, finding him guilty of the charges but as he was appointed by a senior scale officer and the charges being of serious nature meriting major penalty, it was forwarded to me. The petitioner was charged for serious neglect of duty and in the departmental enquiry the charges against him were fully proved. ASO/KGP accepted the findings, finding him guilty of the charges but as he was appointed by a senior scale officer and the charges being of serious nature meriting major penalty, it was forwarded to me. I had as well gone through the entire proceedings and judged the evidence adduced against him in the enquiry and found him guilty of the charges. He was then issued with a show-cause notice which was received by him on 18.10.74 but failed to reply neither within the target date nor even within a month. I, therefore, passed the final order on 26.11.74. In his appeal petition, he was brought no new facts which was not dealt with in the enquiry except the name of his co-worker who was on duty in the same seat that day. This RSK L. S. Lama has been decategorised and subsequently, absorbed as peon in waltair. The proceedings case drawn against him has therefore, been sent to ASOWAT for early finalisation. His contention that the statements of Pws. should have been verified is also incorrect as a delinquent he had been given opportunity to cross-examine a Pw. and defence witnesses cited by him were examined in the course of enquiry. His S. R. is also enclosed herewith." 8. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and held that :– "Aggrieved by the orders of the S. O./KGP the Ex-RSK J. C. Das has submitted an appeal. I have gone through the appeal together with enquiry report and other relevant record of the case. The appellant has stated in his appeal that RSK 1661, L. S. Lama was also on duty with him at the same time whereas he has been removed from service by S. O. but no action has yet been taken against his colleague i. e., RSK 1661 L. S. Lama I find from the report of S. O. that RSK L. S. Lama has been decategorised and subsequently absorbed as a peon in waltier. Necessary action against him have been sent to ASOWAT for early finalisation of the case, as at present he is working as a Peon with ASO/Waltair. The appellant's contention therefore, that the colleague of him who was also on duty has not been punished is not correct. Necessary action against him have been sent to ASOWAT for early finalisation of the case, as at present he is working as a Peon with ASO/Waltair. The appellant's contention therefore, that the colleague of him who was also on duty has not been punished is not correct. The appellant has further brought out in his appeal that on the basis of available evidence, the charges against him have not been proved. I do not agree with his pleadings. I find from the departmental enquiry conducted that on the basis of available evidence, charge of gross neglect of duly has been amply proved. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the punishment awarded by S. O./KGP. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed and the appellant may be informed accordingly." 9. The learned Court below while disposing of the writ application on merits directed that if in view of the circumstances as mentioned in the order the petitioner prays for reconsideration of his case the authorities should reconsider the same and dispose of the matter on merits. The appellant prayed for reconsideration. 10. The Chief Security Officer pursuant to the direction of this Court disposed of the matter by a revisional order dated December 19, 1979. 11. The Revisional Authority while agreeing infer alia, with the order passed by the appellant authority and disciplinary authority inter alia, held that the findings in respect of other RPF staff including one co-worker who were fastened with charged were reached on the basis of separate report and different result were achieved in enquiry report conducted by other Enquiry Officers, that other disciplinary authorities took different view cannot vitiate the proceedings which was condicted after observing the extent procedure. The Revisionary Authority dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Revisional Order. The Chief Security Officer further held : "The petitioner has been given ample opportunity to put forth his case at the stage of appeal and in the writ before the Hon'ble High Court. There was therefore nothing particular which he could put on personally with his defence Counsel as requested by him in his representation. He also appeared before the undersigned on 10.12.79 when he asked for orders on his representation and at that time did not want to put forth any additional facts." 12. There was therefore nothing particular which he could put on personally with his defence Counsel as requested by him in his representation. He also appeared before the undersigned on 10.12.79 when he asked for orders on his representation and at that time did not want to put forth any additional facts." 12. Having duly considered the representation of the petitioner in the light on matters placed by him before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta I came to the conclusion that the punishment was awarded to him after observing laid down procedure in the departmental enquiry and there has been no miscarriage of justice on the grounds agitated by him and in the event the punishment of removal from service should stand. 13. Mrs. Kanika Banerjee the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant advanced threefold submissions namely, the learned Court below did not take into account the basic infirmities as are effectively pointed out before us that the learned Court below also did not take into account the effect of the exoneration of the charge and the imposition of lesser punishment in respect of same matter in which other RPF staff including one co-worker were involved, that the entire proceedings namely, the enquiry report, second show-cause notice, the final order issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appellate Authority are vitiated by non-compliance and/or violation of the provisions of Rules 44(7), 44(8), 44(9) and 44(10), Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1958 (the said Rules for short) that the Court should take note of the subsequent event i. e., the order dated December 19, 1979 passed by the Railway Authority and grant such appropriate relief. 14. Mrs. Banerjee in support of the contention that in support of the contention that the other R.P.F. Staff including one co-worker to the exclusion of the appellant were treated lightly and leniently referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of (1) Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1983(4) SCC 225 . The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that arbitrary picking and choosing for reinstatement after dismissal of police personnel for misconduct of participation in unlawful agitation amounted to breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also claimed by Mrs. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that arbitrary picking and choosing for reinstatement after dismissal of police personnel for misconduct of participation in unlawful agitation amounted to breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also claimed by Mrs. Banerjee that the reasoning of the Revisional Authority has and had no foundation inasmuch as that the Highest Authority being cognizant to such decisions in respect of Sri Jayanta Kumar Ghosh, Sri L. S. Lama and Sri A. K. Das should have accorded such largest of reinstatement to the appellant. 15. The learned Court below, according to Mrs. Banerjee, should have considered the materiality and objectivity of the entire matter in depth, but that was not done. It is further claimed that Mr. A. K. Bose issued the charge-sheets to Sri L. S. Lama, the charge-sheet to shri A. K. Das Head Rakshak, Mr. J. K. Ghosh, Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Imposition of lesser punishment was imposed upon Sri A. K. Das, Sri L. S. Lama was decategorised and Sri J. K. Ghosh earned exoneration from the charges. 16. After referring to the cases of other Railway Protection Force staff including co-worker who were not fastened with the order of dismissal Mrs. Banerjee claimed that it is not proper for the disciplinary authority to reach such conclusions as are stated above. Mrs. Banerjee drew the attention of the Court to the findings of the Enquiry Officer which, according to her, does not conform to the requirements of Rules 44(7) and (8) of the said rules. Rules 44(7) and (8) of the said rules are quoted below : Rule 44(7) : At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its finding on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. If in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from these originally framed, it may record its findings such charge provided that findings on such charges shall no be recorded unless the member so charged has admitted the facts constituting them or has an opportunity of defending himself against them. If in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from these originally framed, it may record its findings such charge provided that findings on such charges shall no be recorded unless the member so charged has admitted the facts constituting them or has an opportunity of defending himself against them. Rule 44(8) : The record of the inquiry shall include (i) the charges framed against the member of the Force and the Statement of allegations furnished to him under sub-rule (2); (ii) his written statement of defence, if any ; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry ; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the enquiry ; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; and (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. 17. Mrs. Banerjee further submitted that the Inquiring Officer did not consider the written statement of defence nor did he consider the exceptions taken by the appellant in the written statement of defence. Apart from above, the Inquiring Officer Failed to record his findings on article of charge and the reasons therefor. At this stage, Mrs. Banerjee pin-pointed the conclusionery paragraph of the said report and claimed that the charge of connivance though not proved beyond reasonable doubt was not mentioned in the Article of Charge. Inquiring Officer acted illegally by seeking to establish charge different from those originally framed by recording the same without following sub-rule (7) of Rule 44 of the said rules which requires inquiry officer not to record such charge different from those originally framed unless members so charged has admitted the fact constituting it or has and had an opportunity of defending himself against such charge. The charge of connivance was recorded without adhering to and/or complying with sub-rule (7) of the Rule 44 of the said rules. The Assistant Security Officer also recorded an order dated January 23, 1974. Mrs. Banerjee seriously commented on the office order dated 23.1.74. It appears from the said Order that the Assistant Security Officer accepted the findings of the Inquiring Officer and found the petitioner guilty of gross negligent of duty. The Assistant Security Officer further held "though connivance could not be proved it is not ruled out totally. Mrs. Banerjee seriously commented on the office order dated 23.1.74. It appears from the said Order that the Assistant Security Officer accepted the findings of the Inquiring Officer and found the petitioner guilty of gross negligent of duty. The Assistant Security Officer further held "though connivance could not be proved it is not ruled out totally. It is difficult to trust and rely such negligent and dishonest staff and no useful purpose is served in keeping such negligent and irresponsible Rakshak in Statutory Force like R. P. F". The said order dated January 23, 1974 was passed before the issue of the second show-cause notice. The Assistant Security Officer recorded an ultra vires finding, inasmuch as the finding reached by the Assistant Security Officer being wholly deters the provisions of the said rules is ultra vires the said rules. The appellant was not given a copy of the said order, but the order, thus remained in the File. The Assistant Security Officer who acted althrough out as the Disciplinary Authority was subsequently found not competent to impose punishment and the Security Officer at this stage stepped into the role of the Disciplinary Authority. The procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the appellant to the exclusion of Shri J. K. Ghosh, the Sub-Inspector R. P. F. Sri A. K. Das the Head Rakshak, and Sri Lama operated to the prejudice of the appellant. Before the issue of the second show-cause notice by the Security Officer the Assistant Security Officer recorded the findings which stood at variance with the charge. The appellant was over charged with the dishonesty, but such findings of dishonesty travelled for beyond the charge. Although the Security Officer did not record any findings of the dishonesty and connivance but the possibility of being influenced by the said Orders of the Assistant Security Officer and the finding of the Inquiring Officer could not be ruled out. Similarly, the Security Officer did not consider the pros and cons of the entire matter and there in thus a deliberate departure from sub-rules.(9) and (10) of the said Rule 44 of the said Rules. Sub-rule 9 of Rule 44 requires the authority to consider the record of the inquiry in depth. Similarly, the Security Officer did not consider the pros and cons of the entire matter and there in thus a deliberate departure from sub-rules.(9) and (10) of the said Rule 44 of the said Rules. Sub-rule 9 of Rule 44 requires the authority to consider the record of the inquiry in depth. Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 44 of the said Rule read thus : (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. (10) (i) if the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on the charges, of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (e) to (h) of Rule 41 should be imposed, it shall pass appropriate orders in the case. (2) If it is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (a) and (d) of Rule.41 should be imposed, it shall– (a) furnish the member so charged with a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary is not the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement if any with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. (b) give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action and (c) consider the representations, if any, made by the member so charged in response to the notice under clause (b) and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the member so charged, and pass appropriate orders on the case. 18. The next submission of Mrs. Banerjee is that the Appellant Authority also acted in clearest breach of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the said Rules for short the said provision hereafter which read as under : 58. Consideration of Appeals––(1) In the case an appeal against an order of suspension the Appellate Authority shall consider whether, in the light of the provision of Rule 40 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. Consideration of Appeals––(1) In the case an appeal against an order of suspension the Appellate Authority shall consider whether, in the light of the provision of Rule 40 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 an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 41, the Appellate Authority shall consider– (a) whether the procedure in these rules has been complied with, if not whether such non-compliance has been resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice, (b) whether the findings are justified, and (c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate and pass orders. 19. The Appellate Authority did not consider whether a procedure prescribed in rules was complied with and if not whether such noncompliance resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or of failure of justice nor did he reach the findings whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are justified. The Appellate Authority did not also record any findings as to whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. Mrs. Banerjee referred to the decisions in the case of (2) R. P. Bhatt v. Union of India reported in 1986 Lab. I. C. 790. 20. Mr. Ajoy Bose appearing for respondents claimed and contended that the enquiry proceedings was commenced, continued and concluded validly, legally and in strict adherence to the provisions of the said Rules, that the pleas of the appellant is that since other Railway Protection Staff fastened with such charge were treated leniently the appellant should have been treated in leniently could not be raised in the facts and circumstances of the case by reason of the findings of the Revisional Authority. Mr. Bose further submitted that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority acted within the bounds of the said Rules and the Orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority could not be challenged as both the authorities concerned, examined and decided the matter in conformity with the said provisions and Rule 60 of the said Rules. Mr. Bose streneously urged that the basic challenge of the appellant has and had no foundation either factual or legal. Mr. Bose streneously urged that the basic challenge of the appellant has and had no foundation either factual or legal. The appellant was allowed to participate in the proceedings and given all facilities to defend his case at the every stage of the enquiry proceedings. The Inquiring Officer accorded reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, that no exception to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority could be taken. Further submission of Mr. Bose is that the order passed by the Asstt. Security Officer on January 23, 1974 did not weigh with the mind of the Security Officer the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. 21. Now turning back to the basic infirmities as highlighted by Mrs. Banerjee as also submission of Mr. Bose on these aspects this Court is required to consider the same. The learned Court below while disposing of the Rule and writ application, in our view, did not consider and examine she infirmities, namely the appellant was found guilty of a finding though not proved beyond reasonable doubt on charges of connivance which did not find place in the charge-sheet, that the Inquiry in serious breach of sub-rule (7) of Rule 44 of the said Rules did not record his findings on such new charge different from those original charge and that finding on such charge of connivance was reached without giving the petitioner an opportunity of defending himself. The Assistant Security Officer in his Order dated January 23, 1974 found the appellant dishonest. There was no charge of dishonesty against the appellant. The Assistant Security Officer also reached his findings in the Order dated January 23, 1974 that no useful purpose is served in keeping such negligent and irresponsible Rakshak in statutory force like RPF. These incurable infirmities go to the root of the matter. Respondents did not furnish the aforesaid Order dated January 23, 1974 to the appellant a result whereof the incurable infirmity which vitiated the enquiry report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority. We are of the view that the violation of sub-rule (7) of Rule 44 of the said Rules and the undisclosed and uncommunicated order passed by the Assistant Security Officer on June 23, 1974 invalidated the enquiry report, the second show-cause notice and the final order. 22. We are of the view that the violation of sub-rule (7) of Rule 44 of the said Rules and the undisclosed and uncommunicated order passed by the Assistant Security Officer on June 23, 1974 invalidated the enquiry report, the second show-cause notice and the final order. 22. A question may emerge whether the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority were influenced by the aforesaid Order of the Asstt. Security Officer passed on December 23, 1974. 23. Assuming that the aforesaid Authorities did not rely on the said Order of the Asstt. Security Officer in support of the finding on the charge against the appellants, then also question may be raised whether the said authorities were influenced in actuality by consideration of the aforesaid Order dated January 23, 1974 and whether there was possibility of being inhibited. Since the Order dated January 23, 1974 has been disclosed before the Government during the course of hearing, we allowed the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to advance their respective submission to the extent discussed above. It appears from the parawise comments furnished to the Appellate Authority by the Security Officer that the findings of the Assistant Security Officer did weigh with the Security Officer who in his turn after referring to and relying in the said findings as contained in the Order dated January 23, 1974 in corporated the same in the parawise comments on appeal. 24. All these facts and the foundational documents being held back from the appellant operated to the extreme prejudice of the appellant. If we held that the actions of respondents are permissible and valid then that would amount to confernment of judicial blessings for violating ultra vires acts and action of the Assistant Security Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant Authority. 25. In our opinion, the requirements of rules and principles of natural justice warrant the appellant should have been served with a copy of the Order dated January 23, 1974, failure to supply the copy of the said Order, in our view, has resulted in the denial of the opportunity to the appellant to defend himself and thus, rendered the entire disciplinary proceedings invalid. It is also serious failure of the Inquiry Officer to frame new charge of connivance without giving the appellant an opportunity of defending himself against the charge amounted to grave miscarriage of justice. It is also serious failure of the Inquiry Officer to frame new charge of connivance without giving the appellant an opportunity of defending himself against the charge amounted to grave miscarriage of justice. Apart from above, the Assistant Security Officer also found the petitioner dishonest. There being no such charge, the proceeding suffered from extraneous consideration. The enquiry report is also bad in law by reason of non-consideration of the defence case of the appellant. Inquiring Officer did not consider the case of the defence. The enquiry report being cast in infraction of sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 44 of the said Rules is liable to be set aside. 26. The contention of Mr. Bose that the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report are valid, legal and proper cannot be accepted. The Disciplinary Authority in terms of Rule 44(9) of the said rule is required to consider the records of the enquiry. The word 'consider' has different shades of meaning. It involves due application of mind to the materials on record. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider the pros and cons of the entire case, nor did he record his findings on article of charge and reasons therefor. 27. Before imposition of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the findings of Inquiry Officer for the purpose of formation of opinion which must be bona fide and honest. The Security Officer in the present case ought to have recorded the findings which could not be found from the order itself or from the documents placed before this Court. As the quasi-judicial authority, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record a reasoned order so that the Appellate Authority may know as to what weighed with the Disciplinary Authority. What is required is that the Disciplinary Authority should record his findings and reasons therefore so that the delinquent can effectively challenge the same in appeal. To understand the approach of the Disciplinary Authority to the grounds on which the impugned order have been passed, it is necessary that they should secure the compliance with the relevant provisions of the said Rules. It is to be borne in mind that the Disciplinary Authority is required to take into account the objectivity and materiality of the entire matter. 28. Similarly, the Appellant Authority failed to secure the compliance of the said provision of the rules. It is to be borne in mind that the Disciplinary Authority is required to take into account the objectivity and materiality of the entire matter. 28. Similarly, the Appellant Authority failed to secure the compliance of the said provision of the rules. The Appellate Authority has legal duty to deliberate about and ponder over and carefully examine the case of the appellant from the records and adjudge, it before confirming and upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The Revisional Authority also did not record the findings whether findings are justified by the evidence on record, not did be consider whether the penalty is excessive or adequate. The decision cited by Mrs. Banerjee in case of R. P. Bhatt v. Union of India (Supra), postulates the word 'consider' in Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 implies due application of mind. The aforesaid rule cast a duty on the Appellate Authority to consider the relevant portion set forth in Rule 27(2) of the aforesaid rules. It is also held in R. P. Bhatt's case that there was no indication nor there was any finding as to whether the finding could be justified by the evidence on record or not. 29. In the contextual perspective, the word 'consider' means the objective consideration by the Appellate Authority which implies that the Appellate Authority should secure compliance of the said provisions of the said rules. There being non-compliance with the aforesaid requirements, the appellate order is liable to be set aside. The revisional order suffers from vice of clear breach of Rule 60 of the said rules. Procedural safeguards contemplated in rules are merited to be considered in the context of and corresponding to plenitude of the jurisdiction of the disciplinary proceedings and the severity of the consequences that visit the charged person subject to that jurisdiction. The procedural safeguards should be in full accord with the sweep of the powers. The dismissal of the appellant's employment is founded on a clear-cut procedure even though generous beyond the requirements that bind the respondents herein, that procedure must be rigourously adhered to. This rule of administration of law is firmly entrenched. The Court also cannot overlook the well-settled principle that when statutory rules require something to the done in a certain manner, it must be done in that manner alone. This rule of administration of law is firmly entrenched. The Court also cannot overlook the well-settled principle that when statutory rules require something to the done in a certain manner, it must be done in that manner alone. Any other mode of performance other than those specified in the rules is strictly forbidden and violative of rules of natural justice. In the present case, both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority acted in clearest violation of the said provisions of said rules which applies to order in revision under Rule 60 of the said rules. 30. Here there is manifest con-compliance with the mandate of 44(7), 44(8), 44(9), 44(10) and the said provisions of the said rule with the attendant consequences, the entire proceedings impugned in the writ application are rendered infirm in law. It is distressing that other R.P.F staff including co-worker were treated lightly and leniently whereas the appellant was arbitrarily picked up and chosen for punishment. It is appropriate for this Court to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Case of Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra), which is quoted below : "If the indiscipline of a large number of personnel amongst dismissed personnel could be condoned or overlooked and after withdrawing the criminal case against them they could be reinstated, we see no justification in treating the present appellants differently without pointing but how they guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in that case was higher than compared to those who were reinstated. Respondents failed to explain to the Court the distinguishing features and therefore, we are satisfied in putting all of them in same bracket. On that conclusion the treatment meted to the present appellants suffers from the vice of arbitration. 31. Be it recorded that the Court is competent to take note of the subsequent events to prevent proliferation of litigation and multiplicity of proceedings. We allowed the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to make their respective submissions on the revisional order. 32. In view of the findings reached above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of Mr. Bose that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority acted in due compliance with the provisions as aforesaid. 33. We allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Court below. 32. In view of the findings reached above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of Mr. Bose that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority acted in due compliance with the provisions as aforesaid. 33. We allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Court below. The enquiry report, the second show-cause notice, the order of removal, the appellate order and the revisional order which may be treated as part of the record of this case are set aside. The respondents shall be at liable to proceed with the matter, if they are so advised. In the event such proceeding is commenced, the concerned authorities shall take into account the orders passed in respect of other RPF staff including co-workers. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus and certiorari do issue. The respondents are hereby directed to pay the appellant all the service benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been fastered with the orders impugned in the writ applications within a period of four months from the date of the communication of the order. No order as to costs. Khastgir, J. : I agree.