VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 257
551
dealing with appeals under rule 22(2) of Railway Servants (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules. It held that the word ‘consider’ implied ‘due
application of mind’ and emphasised that the appellate authority
discharging quasi-judicial functions in accordance with natural justice
must give reasons for its decision. The impugned order of the Railway
Board is a mechanical reproduction of the phraseology of rule 22(2)
without any attempt on the part of the Railway Board to marshal the
evidence on record with a view to decide whether the findings arrived
at by the disciplinary authority could be sustained or not. There is
also no indication that the Railway Board applied its mind as to
whether the act of misconduct with which the appellant was charged
together with the attendant circumstances and the past record of the
appellant were such that he should have been visited with the extreme
penalty of removal from service for a single lapse in a span of 24
years of service. Dismissal or removal from service is a matter of
grave concern to a civil servant who after such a long period of service
may not deserve such a harsh punishment. The Supreme Court
held that there being non-compliance with the requirement of rule
22(2), the impugned order passed by the Railway Board is liable to
be set aside.
It was not the requirement of Art. 311(2) of Constitution prior
to the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 or of the rules of
natural justice that in every case the appellate authority should in its
order state its reasons except where the appellate authority disagreed
with the findings of the Disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court
referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in State of Madras vs. A.R.Srinivasan: (AIR 1966 SC 1827)
and observed that these authorities proceed upon the principle that
in the absence of a requirement in the statute or the rules, there is no
duty cast on an appellate authority to give reasons where the order is
one of affirmance. Here, rule 22(2) in express terms requires the
Railway Board to record its findings on the three aspects stated
therein. Similar are the requirements under rule 27(2) of the Central