TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor-General, Border Roads Organisation dated October 14, 1980, is in conformity with the requirements of r. 27(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('Rules' for short) which have been made applicable to the personnel of the Border Roads Organisation. The facts are that the appellant was appointed as Supervisor (Barracks & Stores) Grade I attached to 60 Road Construction Company, General Reserve Engineering Force on probation for a period of two years by an order dated July 7, 1976. Before the expiry of the probationary period, the Chief Engineer (project) Dante by an order dated June, 24, 1978 terminated the services of appellant. The order of termination however could not be served on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NTAK vide his Order No. 10527/762/EIB dated 24 June 78 was just and in accordance to the Rules applicable. He has accordingly rejected the appeal." Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that in disposing of the appeal the Director-General has not applied his mind to the requirements of r. 27(2) of the Rules, the relevant provisions of which read as follows: "27(2). In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said Rules, the appellate authority shall consider. (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Consti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director-General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of cl. (c) of r. 27(2), viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of r. 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director-General is liable to be set aside. It is not the requirement of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India or of the Rules of natural jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Public Service Commission is consulted where necessary. Having regard to the material which is thus made available to the State Government and which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it seems to us somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the State Government must record its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal. It is conceivable that if the State Government does not accept the findings of the Tribunal which may be in favour of the delinquent officer, and propose to imposes a penalty on the delinquent officer, it should give reasons why it differs from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in such a case, it is not necessary that the reasons should be detailed or elaborate. But where the State Governme....