- (1.) This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2016 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 160 of 2014 (Dr. Pradip Kumar Ray Chaudhuri Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition upon setting aside the order of the appellate authority, which was the subject matter of challenge before the writ Court. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-
(2.) The respondent/writ petitioner was a medical officer in the Health Department of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, which culminated in issuance of a charge-sheet dated 19th December, 2007. The charges levelled against him have been stated in details in the impugned judgment and order. In order to avoid prolixity, we are not reproducing the same. A departmental proceeding was held and the enquiry officer in his report dated 20th May, 2010, held the charges to have been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The disciplinary authority, being the Municipal Commissioner, considered the representation of the respondent/writ petitioner in respect of the enquiry officer's report and passed a reasoned order dated 11th January, 2011, accepting the enquiry officer's report and imposed the punishment of withholding one increment of pay of the respondent/writ petitioner with cumulative effect. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority by way of a statutory appeal before the Mayor. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by an order dated 12th December, 2013, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ proceeding.
(3.) The short question which arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge is whether the appellate authority had applied its independent mind while coming to a finding as to whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority could be sustained or not. The learned Single Judge while adjudicating the matter considered two judgments of the Supreme Court; Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 and Ram Chander Vs. Union of India reported in (1986) 3 SCC 103. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereinbelow:- "(16) The Appellate Authority has not discussed or dealt with the grounds urged by the petitioner in the appeal. The basis for dismissing the appeal, as appears from the impugned order, is that the petitioner could not adduce any additional document for substantiating his claim regarding his innocence. I fail to understand what additional documents the petitioner could produce. Further, an appeal is to be decided on the basis of papers and documents that were before the original authority, in this case the Disciplinary Authority. An Appellate Forum would not normally allow additional documents or evidence to be brought on record excepting where facts of the case warrant application of O.41 R.27 of the CPC or principles analogous thereto. In my opinion, in the facts of the case, there could be no question of the petitioner adducing additional documents before the Appellate Authority. (17) The Appellate Authority should have indicated in its order, albeit briefly, as to why he is in agreement with the Disciplinary Authority's order. Saying that he has considered all relevant files and that he does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, is not sufficient in my view. The Appellate Authority has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), the order of affirmation need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it must contain some reasons, even in brief. To take a contrary view would mean that the Appellate Authority could simply dismiss the appeal by a one line order stating that it agrees with the view of the lower authority. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority should advert to the evidence on record at least briefly so as to justify his order as to why he agrees with the Disciplinary Authority. Merely to say that he agrees with the order of the Disciplinary Authority because he finds no infirmity in it, is not enough. It is as perfunctory as saying that he agrees with an order because he agrees with the order. (18) There is nothing in the order under challenge to indicate that the Appellate Authority applied his mind independently to the facts of the case. The order under challenge is actually an unreasoned order and cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid, the Appellate Authority's order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the order of the Appellate Authority shall be a speaking/reasoned order. The Appellate Authority shall decide the matter afresh within 12 weeks from date of communication of this order." ;