JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Petitioner Andhir Singh was dismissed from the service of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, by its Commissioner by an order dated May 1, 1987, when he was posted as a Chowkidar at the Carignano Rest House, Mashobra. The order was passed after an enquiry into charges levelled against Shri Andhir Singh through a charge-sheet dated December 22, 1986, on two charges, The first charge was that Andhir Singh had intentionally avoided the receipt of transfer orders from Municipal Rest House Carignano to Seog Rest House to the post of Chowkidar-cum-Cook which amounted to wilful neglect of duty and deliberate insubordination on his part The second charge was that he had disobeyed the orders to hand-over the charge of Municipal Rest House, Carignano, to his relieving official Daulat Ram. The enquiry was held by the Asstt. Secretary (Tax) of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, who had been appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The punishing authority was the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. 2. The Inquiry Officer had taken the view that whereas the first charge stood proved against petitioner Andhir Singh, the second charge was not established. The Commissioner, as the Disciplinary Authority, however, found both the charges established. He proposed the punishment of dismissal from service and after considering the reply to the show cause notice given by petitioner Andhir Singh, imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. 3. Under the Himachal Pradesh Municipalities Servants (Punishment, Removal, Suspension and Appeal) Rules, 1971, (hereafter, "the Rules") procedure for imposing penalties and for the enquiry relating thereto is provided in Rule 7. Rules 14 to 20 of these Rules, occurring in Part V, relate to appeals An appeal lies against an order of dismissal from service in Rule 15 (ii) The appellate authority, in the case of an order of dismissal from service, is the Deputy Commissioner of the District in a case where the order is passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. Rules 17 and 18 relate to the period of limitation during which the appeal can be filed and the form and the contents of the appeal. Rule 19 lays down, in detail, the procedure for consideration of appeal by the appellate authority. Rules 17 and 18 relate to the period of limitation during which the appeal can be filed and the form and the contents of the appeal. Rule 19 lays down, in detail, the procedure for consideration of appeal by the appellate authority. Rule 19 (2), in so far as it is material for the present case, says that: “(2) in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 5 , the appellate authority shall consider— (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record ; and whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe ; and pass orders— (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty ; or (ii) …………………" Penalties are provided in Rule 5 which include the penalty of dismissal from service. 4. The aforesaid Rule 19 (2) casts a statutory obligation on the appellate authority to "consider" the factors enumerated at (a), (b) and (c) and than pass an order, inter alia, of the nature mentioned in Rule (2) (i). The use of the word "consider" in Rule 19 (2) implies due application of mind by the appellate authority which should appear in the order passed by it. 5. In the instant case a copy of the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, as the Appellate Authority has been filed as Annexure A-10/1 to the writ petition. By it, the order of dismissal from service passed by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Shimla, was confirmed It is dated July 22, 1987. A perusal of this order shows that after reciting the antecedent facts and noticing the submissions made by the appellant and by the representative of the Municipal Corporation before him, all that is said, by way of consideration of the pleas raised before him, by the Deputy Commissioner Shimla, is this: " I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. I find from the record that both the charges stood proved against the appellant and the pleas taken by him are not tenable. It a lenient view is taken in such cases, this will lead to indiscipline amongst the subordinate staff. I find from the record that both the charges stood proved against the appellant and the pleas taken by him are not tenable. It a lenient view is taken in such cases, this will lead to indiscipline amongst the subordinate staff. I, therefore, hold that there is no justification for interfering with the order of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which is well considered and is up-held. The appeals dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Shimla," Announced. 6. The aforesaid recital does not disclose due application of mind on the part of the appellate authority as contemplated by Rules under which the appellate power is exercised by him. The order does not indicate that the Deputy Commissioner went into the question whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with and, if not, whether such non-compliance had resulted either in the violation of any provision of the Constitution or in the failure of justice. 7. The order mentions that the Deputy Commissioner found from the record that both the charges stood proved against the appellant and the pleas taken by him were not tenable This recital does not amount to a consideration of the question whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were warranted by the evidence on record. For consideration of that nature one would expect in the order of the appellate authority a mention, howsoever brief, about the nature of evidence brought on the record in respect of a particular charge and its evaluation by the appellate authority. 8. Similarly, while considering the question whether the penalty imposed upon the delinquent official was adequate, inadequate or severe some factors present on the record of the case in that regard should find a mention in the order of the appellate authority to show that it was alive to the relevant factors in judging the adequacy or otherwise of the penalty imposed upon the delinquent by the Disciplinary Authority. Merely saying, as has been observed by the appellate authority in the present case, that if a lenient view is taken in such oases, this will lead to indiscipline amongst the subordinate staff shows that the appellate authority was only concerned with the expediency of the penalty imposed upon appellant Andhir Singh. 9. It is clear that the appellate authority has not considered the case of appellant Andhir Singh in accordance with law. The legal position is not in doubt. 9. It is clear that the appellate authority has not considered the case of appellant Andhir Singh in accordance with law. The legal position is not in doubt. One has only to look at the decision of the Supreme Court in R.P Bhatt v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 1040 where the scope of a rule, akin to Rule 19 (2) of the Rules in question, was examined by the Supreme Court. As observed by it, in paragraphs 4 and 5: “The word consider in Role 27 (2) implies due application of mind...... Rule 27 (2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with ; and if not, whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director-General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied has mind to, the requirements of Clause (c) of Rule 27 (2), viz whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 27 (2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director General is liable to be set-aside," 10. Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was being considered by the Supreme Court. That Rule is in parimateria with Rule 19 (2) of our Rules. 11. In the same year, in Ram Chander v Union of India, (AIR. 1986 SC 1173), while dealing with Rule 22 (2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, similar to Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Supreme Court said (in paragraph 9) that: " Rule 22 (2) provides that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said Rule, the appellate authority shall consider as to the matters indicated therein. The word consider has different shades of meaning and must in Rule 22 (2), in the context in which it appears, mean an objective consideration by the Railway Board after due application of mind which implies the giving of reasons for its decision." 12. Since the order of the Appellate Authority in this case is liable to be quashed on the ground aforesaid, I am not mentioning more facts nor the other submissions made before this Court on behalf of the parties lest any observation made by this Court may tend, to prejudice the case of either party when the matter is heard afresh by the Appellate Authority in pursuance of the directions that are to follow: 13. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, dated July 22, 1987 (Annexure A-20/1) shall stand quashed. The Deputy Commissioner will restore the appeal to its original number and after hearing the parties or their counsel he shall dispose it of as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date on which any of the parties appears before him with a certified copy of this order. It will be open to the parties to raise all questions, open to them, at the fresh hearing of the appeal, on the basis of the material already on the record of the proceedings. 14. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs of this petition which is fixed at Rs. 500, from the respondents. The petition shall stand allowed in these terms. Petition allowed.