Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2176 (MAD)

T. Bapuraj v. The Commissioner of Police & Others

2008-07-01

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, P.K.MISRA

body2008
Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the punishment of removal from service was imposed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority in a laconic order, without discussing any of the contentions, simply confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the petitioner, instead of filing any review application as contemplated under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Discipline and Appeal Rules, filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4567 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that a copy of the enquiry report was furnished only along with the penalty order and the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority were very cryptic without discussing the various factual aspects raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal, however, without concentrating on these aspects, analyzed the materials at length and dismissed the Original Application. Such order of the Tribunal is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the very same contentions before us. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the appellate authority and also we have gone through the petition of appeal. In such petition of appeal, several contentions had been raised. However, the appellate authority has simply confirmed the order without giving any reason. In a series of decisions of the Supreme Court including the one reported in 2006 (3) CTC 669 (Director (Mkt), Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs- Santosh Kumar (SC), it has been observed that while considering the appeal in a disciplinary proceeding, the appellate authority is required to give reasons, however brief such reasons may be, and the order should be a speaking order. In the present case, the order of the appellate authority is a non-speaking order. 4. In the present case, the appellate authority has simply observed in Proc.Rc.No.22/Appeal/PR.III(3)/93, dated 30.11.1993, as follows:- 4. A careful examination of all the records connected with the Punishment Roll shows that the principles of natural justice have been followed and the appellant has been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. No miscarriage of justice is caused in appreciation of evidence. Punishment awarded is just and not unreasonable. A careful examination of all the records connected with the Punishment Roll shows that the principles of natural justice have been followed and the appellant has been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. No miscarriage of justice is caused in appreciation of evidence. Punishment awarded is just and not unreasonable. There is no mitigating circumstance as revealed at any point which would warrant reversal of the order of the disciplinary authority. The appeal after careful application of mind is rejected." 5. Under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court had held in the above decision that the order was a non-speaking order. It is of course true that the Tribunal has referred to various aspects. However, as is well known, the High Court while dealing with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Tribunal while dealing with the matter under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India, are not expected to re-appreciate the evidence either way and the Tribunal is required to consider the decision making process rather than merits of the decision itself. In the present case, since the order of the appellate authority was a non-speaking order, in normal course, the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. That apart, we find that during the pendency of the writ petition, a review application was filed, but the reviewing authority observed that the matter was pending before the High Court and as such the review application cannot be decided. 6. In such circumstances, we feel that the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the appellate authority for considering the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made either by the Tribunal or by this Court and also without raising the question of limitation. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the appeal papers. 7. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed subject to the above observation and directions. No costs.