JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is a writ petition by R.N. Sen under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order of General Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., dated October 20, 1987 (Annexure/8) and also the appellate order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Assurance Company passed on November 26, 1987, as a result of which the petitioner was removed from service. 2. The petitioner was an Assistant Administrative Officer, Transport Nagar Branch of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. at Jaipur on March 23, 1985. The Assistant General Manager of the Company served a statement of article of charges against the petitioner framing six charges against him which related to non-performance of duties by the petitioner, insubordination and disregard of reasonable and lawful orders of his superiors and which acts of omissions were highly deter mental and prejudicial to the image and interests of the Company. The petitioner submitted a reply to the memorandum of charges. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was held and, the Enquiry Officer found some of the charges proved and some not. A report of the enquiry was placed before the General Manager alongwith the proceedings held by the Enquiry Officer. The General Manager concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges held to be proved and by his order dated October 20, 1987 imposed a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner with immediate effect. The removal was not to be a disqualification for future employment. Against this order of removal the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Company. A copy of appeal preferred by the petitioner has been filed-as Annexure/3. in which the petitioner had attacked the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in detail and also raised certain legal objections in the conduct of the domestic enquiry. This appeal was decided by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company by his order Annexurc/10. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order of removal from service passed by the General Manager on October 20, 1987. Both these orders are attacked in this writ petition by the petitioner on various grounds. 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, to the writ petition. The respondents have, in substance. Both these orders are attacked in this writ petition by the petitioner on various grounds. 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, to the writ petition. The respondents have, in substance. stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him, he was allowed inspection of documents. The respondents also allowed the petitioner to be represented by and employee having legal qualifications. There was no denial in furnishing copies of documents. It was also stated that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner after due application of mind. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, this writ petition deserves to be allowed to this extent that the order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company (Annx. 10) cannot be allowed to stand on the ground that the said appellate authority has not at all considered in his appellate order whether the findings arrived at in respect of the charges for which the petitioner has been found guilty were justified. The present case is governed by the statutory rules, wherein it has been prescribed as to how the appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal. In this respect, reference may be made to Rule 37 (2) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 1975, which provides that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing penalty any of the penalties specified in Rule 23, the appellate authority shall consider (a) whether the procedure prescribed in the Rules has been complied with, and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in failure of justice; (b) whether the findings are justified and (c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and pass orders. 5. I have gone through the entire appellate order and I do not find in the appellate order any consideration whatsoever by the Chairman-gum-Managing Director of the Assurance Company that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer were justified. Unless the Appellate Authority has considered this crucial question, by application of mind, he could not confirm the order of removal passed by the General Manager. On going through the appellate order it would appear that in the first para the Chairman only recorded the fact of filing of appeal by the petitioner. Unless the Appellate Authority has considered this crucial question, by application of mind, he could not confirm the order of removal passed by the General Manager. On going through the appellate order it would appear that in the first para the Chairman only recorded the fact of filing of appeal by the petitioner. In the second para, after going through the submissions made by the petitioner he found that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted and a regular enquiry was ordered, the inquiry Officer gave findings regarding establishment of certain charges and that the disciplinary authority,concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, passed the order of removal In the third para, he reproduced the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In the fourth para, he again referred to the nature and gravity of the charges and the fact that they have been found to have been established by a duly constituted enquiry. Then he dealt with some legal contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding inspection of documents and not allowing of assistance to the petitioner during the course of disciplinary enquiry of any other employee and, on these legal aspects he held that they were rightly decided by the Enquiry Officer. In further para, he dealt with the charge of bias against the Enquiry Officer and rejected it. Then, he stated as under:- "Having considered all the aspects of the matter, I do not find any fresh extenuating circumstances having been brought out, warranting change in the punishment as meted out vide order dated 20th October, 1987 passed by the Competent Authority." 6. These observations only dealt with the quantum of punishment. There-after what he did was only to reject the appeal and to confirm the order passed by the General Manager of the Company. Nowhere in the appellate order the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has shown that he has considered the findings arrived at on various charges on which the petitioner was found guilty and that they were In the absence of that finding, the appellate order cannot be allowed to stand. 7. Nowhere in the appellate order the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has shown that he has considered the findings arrived at on various charges on which the petitioner was found guilty and that they were In the absence of that finding, the appellate order cannot be allowed to stand. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in R P. Bhatt v. Union of India and others (1986) 2 SCC 651 ) and Ram Chander v. Union of India and others (1983) 3 SCC 103 in support of his contention that the appellate authority should apply his mind and should give his finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. In R P. Bhatt v. Union of India and others (Supra), as in the present case, the matter was governed by Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965. Rule 27(2)(b), though, not exactly identical with Rule 37(2) in the present case, but its import was similar. Rule 27(2)(b) of the aforesaid Rules of 1965 provided that in the case of an approval against an order imposing penalty, the appellate authority shall consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record. It was held that the word '-consider" in Rule 27(2) implies -due application of mind'. In that case, the Director General had not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. He only applied his mind to the quantum of the penalty. It was held that there was non-compliance of Rule 27(2)(b) of the said Rules. The case of Ram Chander v. Union of India and others was also governed by the statutory rules. Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. inter alia, provided that the appellate (authority) shall consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on record. The Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in R. P. Bhatt's case (Supra). 8. Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. inter alia, provided that the appellate (authority) shall consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on record. The Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in R. P. Bhatt's case (Supra). 8. It is to he borne in mind that removal from service is a major penalty upon an employee and when the statutory rules clearly provide the matter to be considered by the appellate authority, the order itself should show the application of mind by the appellate authority on all aspects which he has to consider. In any case, all that can be said is that there was consideration of matter specified in Rule 37 (2) (a) and (c) but not of the matter required to be considered by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37. As already stated, the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the Company has not at all considered whether the findings of the disciplinary authority regarding proof of charges against the petitioner were justified or not. 9. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and only quash the appellate order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 and direct him to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his removal passed by the General Manager on October 20, 1989 and decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with rules. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director will decide the appeal of the petitioner within five months.Petition allowed. *******