R GOPALA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By its order dated 25-6-1971, the State Government imposed a punishment on the petitioner uuder the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, after considering the proceedings of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal under R. 18 before the Governor of Karnataka,. The appeal was rejected by the Governor. The order parsed by the Governor is extracted below: "The appeal petition of Sri R. Gopala Rao, Range Forest Officer (nqw Asst. Conservator of Forests) was considered in the light of the Enquiry Officer's report and also the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner. The Government while passing the orders in Government Order dated 25-6-71, have considered all the points raised in the appeal petition. There are no other fresh points to reconsider- the orders already issued. the Governor of Mysore is therefore pleased to reject the appeal petition of Sri R. Gopala Rao, Range Forest Officer (now Asst. Conservator of Forests)."

(2.) It is clear from the order passed by the Governor which is extracted above that no reasons are given for rejecting the appeal except saying that the Government while passing the order dated 25-6-1971 had considered all the points raised in the appeal petition and no fresh points had been urged to reconsider the order already issued. It is well settled that an appellate authority which is exercising a quasi-judicial power is bound to consider all the contentions raised by the appellant before taking a decision in the appeal. It is not always necessary that the appellant should raise fresh points before the appellate authority. An appellant is entitled to urge the very same contentions which he had urged before the authority against whose orders the appeal has been filed and to request the appellate authority to come to a different conclusion if it is possible on the very same contentions. Further, it is implicit in the very nature of proceedings that the appellate authority has to record its reasons for rejecting the contentions urged by the appellant. It cannot dismiss the appeal merely by saying that the contentions urged by the appellant have been considered by the authority against whose order the appeal has been filed. The manner in which an appeal filed under R. 18 should be disposed of is stated in R. 25 of the Rules. It prescribes that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in R. 8, the appellate authority shall consider (1) whether the procedure prescribed in these 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 are justified and (3) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. The impugned order does not satisfy the requirement of R. 25. Hence it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order No. APD 333" FNG 71 dated 26-March, 1972, is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.