T BAPURAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the punishment of removal from service was imposed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority in a laconic order, without discussing any of the contentions, simply confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the petitioner, instead of filing any review application as contemplated under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Discipline and Appeal Rules, filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4567 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

(2.) THE petitioner contended before the Tribunal that a copy of the enquiry report was furnished only along with the penalty order and the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority were very cryptic without discussing the various factual aspects raised by the petitioner. THE Tribunal, however, without concentrating on these aspects, analyzed the materials at length and dismissed the Original Application. Such order of the Tribunal is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) UNDER similar circumstances, the Supreme Court had held in the above decision that the order was a non-speaking order. It is of course true that the Tribunal has referred to various aspects. However, as is well known, the High Court while dealing with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Tribunal while dealing with the matter under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India, are not expected to re-appreciate the evidence either way and the Tribunal is required to consider the decision making process rather than merits of the decision itself. In the present case, since the order of the appellate authority was a non-speaking order, in normal course, the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. That apart, we find that during the pendency of the writ petition, a review application was filed, but the reviewing authority observed that the matter was pending before the High Court and as such the review application cannot be decided.