Strict compliance with appellate filing requirements: absence of proper grounds and authorization rendered the departmental appeal non-maintainable.

A departmental appeal must comply strictly with the statutory authorization requirement and the procedural rule requiring properly framed, consecutively numbered grounds of appeal. The Tribunal held that a mere annexure reference could not replace distinct grounds, and the record also failed to show valid authorization for the officer who filed the appeal on behalf of the Collector. As these filing requirements were mandatory and were not satisfied, the appeal was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed appellate procedure, including absence of properly set out grounds of appeal and want of proof of authorization under the governing provision.

Analysis: The appeal papers did not contain grounds of appeal in the manner required by the procedural rules, and the Tribunal declined to treat an annexure reference as a substitute for distinct, consecutively numbered grounds. The record also did not show any authorization empowering the officer who filed the appeal to act on behalf of the Collector as required by the statutory provision governing departmental appeals. Since the filing requirements were mandatory and had not been complied with, the appeal could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was rejected for non-compliance with the statutory provision and the procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental appeal must comply strictly with the statutory requirement of authorization and the prescribed rule requiring proper grounds of appeal; failure to do so renders the appeal liable to rejection.

---