BIJALI RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the Order No. 1597 of 2004 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent no.5; whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also the appellate order passed by respondent No.3, whereby the order of punishment has been sustained.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has filed a detailed appeal before the appellate forum, however in most mechanical manner the appeal has been rejected and the contention of this petitioner has not been considered that he was mentally ill and that is the reason he was absent for a long time. He further submits that he is confining his prayer only on the issue that the appellate order should be reasoned and speaking order. In this regard he referred to the judgment passed in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Versus A. Masilamani , 2013 6 SCC 530, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 19 has held as under:- "19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order."