Reasoned departmental appeals are mandatory where the appellate rule requires scrutiny of evidence, procedure and punishment.

Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 required the appellate authority to apply its mind to the legality of the disciplinary procedure, the evidentiary basis of the findings, and the adequacy of the punishment, and to pass a reasoned order. A mechanical endorsement of the rule's language, without assessing the record or the employee's service circumstances, did not meet that statutory duty. Because the appellate order lacked such objective consideration and reasons, it was unsustainable and had to be set aside, with the appeal to be reheard afresh after affording personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Railway Board, while disposing of the appellant's departmental appeal under Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, was required to apply its mind to the statutory factors and pass a reasoned order, and whether non-compliance vitiated the appellate order.

Analysis: Rule 22(2) required the appellate authority to consider whether the disciplinary procedure was followed, whether the findings were warranted by the evidence, and whether the punishment was adequate, inadequate or severe, and then pass appropriate orders. The expression used in the rule was held to demand objective consideration and due application of mind. A mere mechanical reproduction of the rule's language, without marshalling the evidence or dealing with the severity of punishment in the light of the employee's service record and the circumstances, did not satisfy the statutory mandate. The decision distinguished situations where no statute requires reasons from the present case, where the rule itself imposed a duty to record a proper finding on the relevant aspects. The Court also noticed that after the constitutional amendment removing the second opportunity against proposed punishment, the departmental appeal assumed greater importance and must therefore be decided by a reasoned order after hearing the delinquent servant.

Conclusion: The Railway Board's order dismissing the appeal was unsustainable for failure to comply with Rule 22(2) and was liable to be set aside. The matter had to be reheard and decided afresh on merits by a reasoned order after affording personal hearing.

---