Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 310 (MAD)

M. Kalyani v. State of Tamil Nadu

2016-01-27

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2016
ORDER : The husband of the petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in the office of the Tahsildar, Sivakasi. He was dismissed from service by order dated 30.04.2008 on certain allegations, after framing charges under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and after holding enquiry thereto. The petitioner filed appeal to the third respondent, who is the appellate authority. 2. The appeal was rejected by the third respondent by an order dated 27.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review before the second respondent. The same was also dismissed by the second respondent by an order dated 08.12.2014. 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal, the order passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the reviewing authority. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the right of appeal is a valuable remedy and the appellate authority has not passed a reasoned order in terms of rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. He has taken me through the order dated 27.09.2012 of the third respondent. 5. Heard both sides. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority did not give any reason for rejecting the appeal except stating that the appellant died. It is useful to extract paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated 27.09.2012. “XX XX XX” 7. The earlier portions are relating to the narration of the charges and the departmental proceedings leading to the dismissal order and the filing of the appeal. 8. In my view, the appellate authority did not give any reasons for rejecting the appeal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rule 23 enjoins on the appellate authority to give reasons. Furthermore, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, has held that both the quasi-judicial and the administrative authorities shall record reasons for its conclusions. 9. Here, the statutory rule enjoins on the third respondent to give reasons. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to pass fresh order giving reasons for disposing the appeal. 9. Here, the statutory rule enjoins on the third respondent to give reasons. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to pass fresh order giving reasons for disposing the appeal. The third respondent is directed to dispose the appeal by passing a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)Nos.1450 and 1451 of 2016 are closed.