Judgment : 1. The petitioner retired from the service of the first respondent-Corporation on 30/4/1997, while working as District Transport Officer, Vizhinjam. The main grievance raised in this Original Petition is against the punishment imposed on him vide Ext.P13 order of the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed in Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority. His further grievances are in relation to non-payment of monthly pension applicable to District Transport Officer, non-payment of provident fund, welfare fund, etc., and also non-disposal of Ext.P24 application for parity fixation. 2. The petitioner, while working as Inspector, was posted for attending the RTA meetings, schedule revision works and other connected matters, vide Ext.P1 order of the District Transport Officer, Kollam. While continuing as such, he was placed under suspension vide Ext.P2 order alleging gross dereliction of duty in relation to filing of objections against grant of permits to various private operators violating the scheme of nationalisation. Based on Ext.P3 preliminary enquiry report the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 charge sheet with statement of allegations. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 written statement of defence denying the charge levelled against him. In Ext.P11 enquiry report the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charge. Agreeing with the findings in Ext.P11 report, the disciplinary authority vide Ext.P13 imposed on the petitioner a punishment of increment bar for a period of one month temporarily. It was further ordered to treat the period of suspension as eligible leave. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P13 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 appeal before the Managing Director of the first respondent-Corporation, who is the appellate authority in relation to an appeal filed under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. But the appellate authority vide Ext.P22 rejected the said appeal, thereby confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It was in such circumstances, the petitioner moved this court in this Original Petition, challenging Exts.P2, P4, P13, P18 and P22 orders and seeking other consequential reliefs. In spite of service of notice, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, inter alia, that Ext.P13 order passed by the disciplinary authority and Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority are vitiated by total non-application of mind. In spite of service of notice, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, inter alia, that Ext.P13 order passed by the disciplinary authority and Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority are vitiated by total non-application of mind. There is nothing in Ext.P22 to show that there is application of mind by the appellate authority while agreeing with the findings in the enquiry report and confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 5. I find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority is vitiated by total non-application of mind. It is aggrieved by the punishment imposed in Ext.P13 order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred Ext.P14 appeal, under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC&A Rules’ only), before the appellate authority. The punishment of increment bar imposed on the petitioner is one of the penalties specified under Rule 11(1) of the CC&A Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules deals with consideration of appeals by the appellate authority against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 (1), which reads thus; “31. The punishment of increment bar imposed on the petitioner is one of the penalties specified under Rule 11(1) of the CC&A Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules deals with consideration of appeals by the appellate authority against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 (1), which reads thus; “31. Consideration of appeals:- (1) xx xx xx xx (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 11(1) the appellate authority shall consider,- (a) whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; (b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; (c) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (d) whether the findings are justified; and (e) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and after consultation with the Commission, if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass orders,- (i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or (ii) 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.” Going by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules, the appellate authority is required to consider whether the facts on which the order imposing penalty was based have been established; whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; whether the procedure prescribed in the CC&A Rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; whether the findings are justified; and whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. 6. The word ‘consider’ in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a provision which is pari materia with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules came up for consideration of the Apex Court in R.P. Bhatt Vs. 6. The word ‘consider’ in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a provision which is pari materia with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules came up for consideration of the Apex Court in R.P. Bhatt Vs. Union of India [ 1986 (2) SCC 651 : AIR 1986 SC 1040 ] and the Apex Court held that, the word ‘consider’ in Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, implies due application of mind. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment read thus; “4. The word 'consider' in Rule 27(2) implies 'due application of mind'. It is clear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the appellate authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such non compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. 5. 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 his mind to the requirement 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.” In Ram Chander Vs. 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.” In Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and others [ 1986 (3) SCC 103 : AIR 1986 SC 1173 ], the Apex Court dealing with a similar provisions under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, condemned the mechanical way of dismissal of appeal in the context of requirement of Rule 22(2) of the aforesaid Rules. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads thus; “9. These authorities proceed upon the principle that in the absence of a requirement in the statute or the rules, there is no duty cast on an appellate authority to give reasons where the order is one of affirmance. Here, Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules in express terms requires the Railway Board to record its findings on the three aspects stated therein. Similar are the requirements under Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 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.” In Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others Vs. Madusudhan Rao [ 2008 (3) SCC 469 ] the Apex Court held that, though an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing the appeal or revision. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads thus; “20. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads thus; “20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” 7. The short point involved in this Original Petition is whether Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority is in conformity with the requirements of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules. The reasoning of the appellate authority stated in Ext. P22, in order to confirm the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, reads thus; “I find sufficient reasons to agree with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer which was finalised after analysing all the evidences in its proper perspective. The appellant has not adduced any valid evidence in his appeal petition to prove his innocence. The charges proved against the appellant were very serious in nature and the punishment imposed is very meagre when compared to the gravity of offence proved against the appellant. I find no extenuating circumstances as well warranting interference with the impugned order.” Though, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in Clauses (a) to (e) thereof, there is absolutely no indication in Ext.P22 that the appellate authority applied its mind to the aforesaid relevant factors while passing the said order. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules, Ext. P22 order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be interfered with and I do so. 8. In such circumstances, Ext. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules, Ext. P22 order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be interfered with and I do so. 8. In such circumstances, Ext. P22 order passed by the appellate authority, the Managing Director of the first respondent corporation is quashed and the said authority is directed to reconsider Ext.P14 appeal on merits and dispose of the same, keeping in mind the requirements under Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner should be afforded with an opportunity of being heard at the time of reconsideration of Ext.P14 appeal. 9. The remaining grievances of the petitioner are in relation to non-payment of monthly pension applicable to District Transport Officer, non-payment of provident fund, welfare fund, etc., and also non-disposal of Ext.P24 application for parity fixation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P24 application is still pending consideration before the first respondent. Though, during the pendency of this Original Petition the first respondent issued Ext.P25 order sanctioning DCRG of Rs.56,025/-, an amount of Rs.11,556/- was deducted towards the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension, which according to the learned counsel is illegal and contrary to the judgment of this Court in Thomas Vs. Deputy Director of Education [2005 (2) KLT 872]. It will be open to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the first respondent highlighting his grievances referred to above, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a representation is received, the first respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representation and also on Ext.P24 application for parity fixation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.