VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

532 DECISION - 242
leaving the place of work without proper permission is a serious case
of misconduct, negligence of duty and indiscipline.”
The Supreme Court observed that where the evidence is
annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between
the two showing application of mind, it is not an inquiry report at all.
The Supreme Court held that there is no application of mind by the
Inquiring Authority and that the order of termination is unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed
the order of termination of the services of the appellant.
(242)
(A) Appeal — consideration of
(B) Application of mind
Appellate authority under obligation to consider all
the three requirements: (i) whether procedure is
complied with, (ii) whether finding is based on
evidence, and (iii) whether penalty is adequate.
Order not disclosing consideration of all the three
elements illegal. Order must indicate due
application of mind.
R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India,
1985(3) SLR SC 745
The appellant, a Supervisor (Barracks and Stores), Grade I
in the General Reserve Engineering Force, was proceeded against
departmentally on the charge that he was deserter since he
absconded from his duty in order to evade service of the order of his
termination during the period of his probation. After inquiry, the penalty
of removal from service was imposed on him by the disciplinary
authority with effect from 10-6-80. The appellant filed a departmental
appeal and the appellate authority, Director General, Border Roads,
by order dated 14-10-80 dismissed the appeal observing: “After
thorough examination of the facts brought out in the appeal, the DGBR