H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was an employee of respondent-Company Bharat Earth movers Limited (for short, 'beml' ). By an order dated 4-1-1993, the disciplinary Authority of the company had passed an order removing the petitioner from the services of the respondent-Company, which order came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed by the delinquent by his order dated 22-6-1993 as a result of which, the petitioner has approached this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution taking exception to the aforesaid orders. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are: while working as Assistant Manager in the respondent company, he was served with a show-cause notice bearing No. 24 (85)/4077 dated 10-6-1992 inter alia directing him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for alleged misconduct. In the notice it was alleged that the petitioner had attended II shift on 37 days without permission and had come late to the factory on 30 days and on 9 days he had worked extra hours and thus had put in 40. 72 number of hours short attendance on account of unauthorised late coming and early going and lastly, absenting without leave or permission for a period of 66 days, thereby committing gross misconduct under Rule 5 (f) and 5 (g) of the BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 ('rules' for short ). However show-cause notice was not accompanied with statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses. The show-cause notice required the delinquent officer to furnish his explanation on or before 16-6-1992 of the receipt of the notice, as the inquiry was proposed to be held against him. ( 3 ) STRANGELY, the delinquent officer did not offer his explanation as directed in the show-cause notice. In spite of it, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations made in the show-cause notice. The management had adduced evidence before the Inquiry Officer in support of its allegation against the petitioner. The delinquent was permitted to cross-examine those witnesses by the inquiry Officer. After completion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry officer had submitted his report and the findings of the inquiry to the disciplinary Authority. The management had adduced evidence before the Inquiry Officer in support of its allegation against the petitioner. The delinquent was permitted to cross-examine those witnesses by the inquiry Officer. After completion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry officer had submitted his report and the findings of the inquiry to the disciplinary Authority. In that, the Inquiry Officer was of the view that the delinquent is guilty of charges under 5 (h) and 5 (g) of the Rules. The disciplinary Authority accepting the report and the findings of the Inquiry officer passed the order dated 4-1-1993, imposing a punishment of "removal from service" as envisaged under Rule 24 (f) of the BEML conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Thereafter, the appeal to the appellate Authority of the respondent-Company followed which came to be dismissed by the Board of Directors by their order dated 22-6-1993. It is these orders which have brought the petitioner before this Court, being aggrieved by the same. ( 4 ) SRI Shilendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that. (a) The initiation of domestic inquiry proceedings is bad and invalid for the sole reason that the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Company has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 (c) of BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. (b) The findings of the Inquiry Officer is wholly perverse and based on such a finding the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed any punishment much less a major punishment. (c) There is total lack of application of mind by the Appellate authority while confirming the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority as no reasons are assigned while rejecting the grounds urged in support of the appeal. (d) Punishment imposed is not in commensuration with the offences alleged and proved in the domestic inquiry proceedings. ( 5 ) SRI R. Gururajan, learned Counsel for respondent-Company sought to justify the impugned orders. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it may be useful to extract and notice the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary authority for initiating the inquiry proceedings. The same is as under:"it is reported against you as under: 1. During the period 1-1-1992 to 31-5-1992, you were assigned duties to perform in 'b' shift i. e. 8. 30 AM to 5. 00 PM. (a) on 17 number of days you have not attended work. The same is as under:"it is reported against you as under: 1. During the period 1-1-1992 to 31-5-1992, you were assigned duties to perform in 'b' shift i. e. 8. 30 AM to 5. 00 PM. (a) on 17 number of days you have not attended work. In the shop, on your own, without any permission you have recorded your attendance in II shift (as indicated in (a) in the statement ). (b) on 30 number of days you have come to the factory late without any permission and you have left the factory before the close of the shift without any intimation whatsoever. (as indicated at (b) in the statement ). (c) on 9 number of days you have chosen to stay extra hours without any work or without permission (as indicated at (c) in the statement ). (d) you have put in 40. 72 number of hours short attendance on account of your unauthorised late coming and early going (as indicated at (d) in the statement ). (i) A statement showing attendance particulars/punch 'in' and 'out' timings is enclosed. (ii) You were absent for work without leave or permission during the period August 1991 to May 1992 as follows: August 1991 7 days viz, 10th to 13th 23rd to 24th and 31st September 1991 5 days viz, 1st to 3rd, 23rd to 24th October 1991 3 days viz, 4th to 5th, 31st November 1991 20 days viz, 1st to 20th January 1992 1 day viz, 1st March 1992 1 day viz, 19th April 1992 17 days viz, 10th to 18th, 22nd, 24th to 30th May 1992 12 days viz, 1st, 2nd, 9th, 13th to 15th, 21st to 26th. 2. The acts as above alleged against you amount to misconduct under Rule 5 (f), (h) and (g) of the BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules viz. Rule 5 (f) "wilful insubordination or disobedience. . . of any lawful and reasonable order of his superior". Rule 5 (h) "habitual late or irregular attendance". Rule 5 (g) "absence without leave or overstaying the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation". 3. Rule 5 (f) "wilful insubordination or disobedience. . . of any lawful and reasonable order of his superior". Rule 5 (h) "habitual late or irregular attendance". Rule 5 (g) "absence without leave or overstaying the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation". 3. You are hereby called upon to submit your explanation in writing on or before 16-6-1992 and show cause as to why one of the penalties provided under Rule 24 of the BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules should not be imposed on you and also why the salary should not be recovered for shortage of hours or in lieu leave at credit should not be adjusted. 4. If you fail to submit explanation within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and further action will be taken as per Rules". ( 7 ) THE charge memo is a document which sets in motion the machinery of the domestic enquiry. A charge-sheet is normally issued after a complaint is made to the employer or to any authorised officer of any misconduct committed by the employee. It may also be issued suo motu by the employer when it comes to his knowledge either directly or through some other person that some offence has been committed which calls for action on the part of the management. Normally, the charge memo contains charge against the accused employee asking him to offer explanation within certain period of time. The Courts have time and again observed that the essential ingredients of a valid charge memo is that, it should not be vague; it should contain material particulars etc. Keeping in view the basic requirements necessary for valid initiation of proceedings, let me consider the first contention canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner. He submits that the proceedings are bad, invalid and illegal, since the Disciplinary Authority has not faithfully complied with the provisions of BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, while initiating domestic inquiry proceedings. Keeping in view the basic requirements necessary for valid initiation of proceedings, let me consider the first contention canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner. He submits that the proceedings are bad, invalid and illegal, since the Disciplinary Authority has not faithfully complied with the provisions of BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, while initiating domestic inquiry proceedings. In that he invites my attention to Rule 26 of the Rules and submits that since the Disciplinary authority has not framed definite charges on the basis of the allegations against the employee and since the petitioner was not communicated with the statement of imputations, the list of witnesses and the documents, the inquiry proceedings are vitiated and therefore proceedings lequire to be set aside by this Court. I am not impressed by the contention advanced by learned Counsel and in my view it has no merit. Rule 26 speaks of a procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 26 (c) envisages that the delinquent should be supplied with articles of charges, together with statement of imputations, list of witnesses and documents. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the delinquent has been issued with show-cause notice which has all the ingredients of a valid charge memo. It contains the allegations against the accused employee, and those allegations are specific and capable of being understood and sufficiently definite to enable the delinquent employee to offer his explanation. The other possible defect could be, non-furnishing of statement of imputations and list of witnesses. Since the show-cause notice itself had provided detailed particulars to the charge-sheeted officer to enable him to put up his defence and offer his explanation, the omission to supply the statement of imputations would not amount to flaw in the show-cause notice and even otherwise since it has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the entire inquiry proceedings are vitiated. Further petitioner did not cht to file his defence nor informed the authorities that he would not be in a position to offer his defence statement in the absence of statement of imputation. If for any reason he was handicapped to offer his explanation, he could have definitely requested the Disciplinary Authority to provide him with statement of imputation to facilitate him to participate effectively in the inquiry proceedings. If for any reason he was handicapped to offer his explanation, he could have definitely requested the Disciplinary Authority to provide him with statement of imputation to facilitate him to participate effectively in the inquiry proceedings. Nextly, petitioner did participate in the inquiry proceedings and has effectively cross-examined the management witnesses. In view of all this, it can safely be said that non-supply of statement of imputations and list of witnesses has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, the first contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner has no merit and accordingly it is rejected. ( 8 ) NEXTLY, it is contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer is wholly perverse and based on such a finding of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary Authority could not have imposed any punishment. This assertion has no basis whatsoever. A perusal of the findings of the Inquiry officer clearly demonstrates that the Inquiry Officer after completion of the inquiry has analysed the evidence on record and has assigned proper reasons for believing and disbelieving the version of both parties. The Inquiry Officer while coming to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty of the charges alleged against him not only assigns reasons that too proper reasons. In my view findings of the Inquiry Officer is neither on presumptions nor on suspicions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the inquiry is either perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel submits that there is total lack of application of mind by the Appellate Authority, as no reasons are assigned while confirming the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority particularly on the question of punishment. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant rule under which the appeal is required to be filed and the method and manner in which the appeal has to be considered by the Appellate Authority. ( 10 ) RULE 33 of the BEML Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules provides for an appeal remedy, against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 24 or against an order of suspension referred to in rule 21. Rule also provides the method and the manner in which the appeal has to be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority. Rule also provides the method and the manner in which the appeal has to be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority. The rule is as under:"rule 33. Appeals. (i) An employee may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in Rule 24 or against the order of suspension referred to in Rule 21. The appeal shall lie to the authority specified in the Schedule. (ii) An appeal shall be preferred within one month from the date of communication of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority specified in the schedule and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority within 15 days. The Appellate authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders within three months of the date of appeal. The appellate Authority may pass order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: provided that if the enhanced penalty which the Appellate authority proposes to impose is a major penalty specified in clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Rule 24 and an inquiry as provided in rule 26 has not already been held in the case, the Appellate authority shall direct that such an inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 26 and thereafter consider the record of the inquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper. If the appellate Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an inquiry has already been held as provided in Rule 26, the appellate Authority shall give a show-cause notice to the employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him. The Appellate Authority shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the employee". The Appellate Authority shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the employee". ( 11 ) A perusal of the rule clearly suggests that the Appellate Authority is expected to consider whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer is justified and whether the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is excessive or inadequate and then pass appropriate orders. In the instant case though the order made by the Appellate Authority is elaborate and has discussed the various issues raised in the memorandum of appeal by the delinquent has not specifically adverted to whether the punishment of removal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, since Rule 33 in express terms requires the Appellate Authority to consider whether the penalty imposed is excessive or inadequate or severe. In my view the Appellate authority should have objectively considered the gravity of the charges alleged and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. This aspect of the matter has been glossed over by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal of the delinquent. In my view there is no application of mind by the Appellate Authority particularly on the question of punishment. Secondly, the charges alleged and proved, in my view, are not that grave and severe which warrant the termination of an employee, who was working as Assistant Manager in the respondent- company for decades. The punishment imposed by the Appellate authority shocks the conscience of any reasonable person. Thirdly, when the rule requires the authority to discharge its duties in a particular manner, the said authority is bound to follow the rule. Breach of the rule would definitely vitiate the proceedings. In the instant case, though the appellate Authority considered the matter and held that the charges are proved on the basis of the evidence available on record, it did not consider whether the punishment of removal as imposed by the Disciplinary authority warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. There fore, i am of the view, that on the question of penalty to be imposed, the appellate Authority has not applied its mind and has not assigned any reasons whatsoever while confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary Authority. There fore, i am of the view, that on the question of penalty to be imposed, the appellate Authority has not applied its mind and has not assigned any reasons whatsoever while confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary Authority. In view of all this, the order made by the Appellate authority requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Appellate Authority to redo the matter in accordance with law. ( 12 ) IN the result, petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to that extent. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to redo the matter in accordance with law and in accordance with Rule 33 of the rules for fresh consideration on the question of punishment to be im posed. This Court hopes and desires that the Appellate Authority while considering the matter would keep in view the nature and the gravity of charges alleged against the delinquent in the charge memo. Ordered iccordingly. --- *** --- .