Mandatory appellate consideration under service rules: failure to examine procedure and evidence vitiates the appellate order.

Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 requires the appellate authority to consider compliance with procedure, whether any procedural lapse caused constitutional violation or failure of justice, whether the disciplinary findings are supported by evidence, and whether the penalty is adequate. An appellate order that addresses only the adequacy of punishment, without recording consideration of procedural compliance and evidentiary support, reflects failure to apply the statutory mind required by the rule and is vitiated for non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order dismissing the departmental appeal complied with Rule 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

Analysis: Rule 27(2) required the appellate authority to consider whether the prescribed procedure had been complied with, whether any non-compliance caused constitutional violation or failure of justice, whether the disciplinary findings were supported by evidence, and whether the penalty was adequate. The order under challenge showed consideration only of the adequacy of the punishment and did not record any consideration of compliance with procedure or the evidentiary basis of the findings. Such omission amounted to failure to apply the statutory mind required of the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The appellate order was vitiated for non-compliance with Rule 27(2) and was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority is statutorily required to consider procedure, evidentiary support, and adequacy of penalty, failure to address those mandatory factors invalidates the appellate order.

---