M PALANISAMY Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was working as an Assistant /Store Keeper in Sunola Sales Depot of the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. While working as Store Keeper, he was placed under suspension on certain charges and two charges were framed against him on 25.10.1999, which are as follows:

(2.) THERE was no explanation submitted by the petitioner for the above said charges, however, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report and after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2002, dismissing the petitioner from service. It was, against the said order, an appeal was filed before the first respondent, who under the impugned order dated 16.03.2002, rejected the appeal with the following reasons:

(3.) ON a reference to the appellate authority's order as elicited above, it is clear that there is no application of mind and the reasons have not been adduced. Law is well settled that when the appellate authority confirms the original authority's order of punishment, it is not necessary that the appellate authority should traverse into the facts of the case and make an application of mind. In cases where the appellate authority is bound by the procedure that is contemplated under the Service Rules, the appellate authority has to act as per the procedure. Therefore, while confirming the order of the original authority, when the Rules compelling the appellate authority to give elaborate reason and the Rules are particular about a method to be followed by the authority, the non-following of the same has to be necessary interfered by this Court. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the part of the Rules relating to the appellate authority's power. Rule 59-B, deals with the appeal against the order of the original authority in sub-clause (iv), which is as follows: