Heard Mr.J.P.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28 April 2009, passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia partly allowing the petitioner's appeal against the order of punishment and partly upholding the order of stoppage of one annual increment permanently as also the order dated 18 June, 2009 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia, who has issued the formal order pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of punishment no opportunity was provided to the petitioner. Against the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Ballia, who called for the reports in the appeal from the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) concerned submitted a report, over which the District Magistrate showed his satisfaction partly and upheld the order of punishment to the extent it imposes punishment of stoppage of one annual increment permanently, whereas he has set aside the order to the extent it doubts the petitioner's integrity.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority has passed the order without applying his mind only relying upon the report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia, whereas being the appellate authority he himself has to apply his mind over the report so that the order of punishment can be set aside. In support of his submission he cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240. Relevant paragraphs 5 and 9 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
"5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover case has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain sme reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
9. No doubt, in S.N.Mukherjee case it has been observed that: (SCC p.613, para 36) "36....... The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority."
In the light of the aforesaid preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court when I examined the order of the appellate authority, I found that indisputably the District Magistrate/appellate authority has not applied his mind, instead he has made an endorsement of punishment, which is unsustainable being without application of mind. Therefore, I hereby quash the order dated 28 April 2009, passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia as well as consequential order dated 18 June 2009 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia with the direction to the District Magistrate, Ballia/appellate authority to re-consider the petitioner's appeal in the light of the grounds as raised in the appeal as well as the report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia and pass a fresh order within two months from the date of communication of order.
The petitioner shall place a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned within a week.
With the aforesaid direction/observation the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 2.12.2014 Banswar