http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1104 of 2008

PETITIONER: DIVL. FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAGUDEM & ORS

RESPONDENT: MADHUSUDHAN RAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2008

BENCH: A.K. MATHUR & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    1104           OF 2008 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 297 OF 2006]

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1.              Leave granted. Delay condoned.

2.              This appeal at the instance of the Divisional Forest  Officer, Kothagudem and other officers of the Ministry of  Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed against the  judgment and order dated 9.3.2005 passed by the Division  Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Writ  Petition No. 3817 of 2005 filed by the appellants herein.   

3.              The Writ Petition was filed challenging the order  dated 23.11.2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh  Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 1157 of 2002  allowing the same and directing that the respondent herein be  reinstated in service.  

4.              From the materials as disclosed, it appears that the  respondent herein was appointed as a "Forester" on 7.4.1994  and was posted in Section Komararam from 7.4.1994 to  24.8.1996.  According to the appellants, during the said period  the appellant was advanced funds to carry out different works  under the Andhra Pradesh Forestry Project.  Despite having  received such funds, he did not undertake the said work and  disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the  following charges:

"1.     (a)     Neglect of duty with mala fide intention  by not depositing the Government funds in the  Joint Account (Bank) thereby causing  embezzlement of Government money of Rs.  10,000/-

(b)     by false expenditure and producing the  fabricated vouchers without executing the  work amounting to embezzlement of  Government money of Rs. 54,625.00,

(c)     by not maintaining the muster rolls and  non-payment of wages of Rs.4865.00 to the  labourers, resulting in embezzlement of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

money.

2.      Misappropriation of Rs. 580.00 collected  towards C’fees, by not issuing CF.140 receipt to the  accused."

Having been found guilty of both the charges by the Divisional  Forest Officer, the following punishment was imposed upon  the respondent, namely,  (i)     (5) Annual Grade Increments was stopped with  cumulative effect apart from recovery of  Government losses of Rs. 64,725/- at the rate  of Rs. 500/- per month in (130) installments;  

(ii)    The suspension period from 24.8.1996 to  17.4.197 be regularised towards Earned Leave  available to the respondent.

5.              Aggrieved by the said order of punishment passed  by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem, the respondent  filed an appeal to the Conservator of Forests, Khammam  Circle, Khammam.  The said authority upon going through the  materials was of the view that it was a clear case of  misappropriation of Government funds which entailed more  punishment than had been awarded by the Divisional Forest  Officer.  The respondent’s case was, therefore, reopened in  terms of Rule 18(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services  (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and a show  cause notice was issued to the respondent in terms of Rule  37(2)(v) directing him to show cause as to why he should not  be removed from service.  Upon considering the reply  submitted by the respondent, the Conservator of Forests  passed order dated 11.7.2001 dismissing the respondent from  service.  

6.              A revision petition filed by the respondent before the  Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh was  partly allowed by his order dated 19.11.2001 to the extent that  the order of "dismissal from service" was modified to "removal  from service".  It may be indicated that neither the  Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam, nor the  Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, in their  separate orders gave any reasons as such for maintaining first  the punishment as imposed by the Divisional Forest Officer  and thereafter the enhanced punishment of dismissal passed  by the Conservator of Forests.   

7.              It is against the said orders that the respondent  moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which  after considering the matter in detail formulated the following  points for consideration in the case:

(a)     Whether the order of the appellate authority is  vitiated and liable to be set aside?

(b)     Whether there are any procedural lapses, which are  not pointed out by the appellate authority?

(c)     Whether entertainment of appeal without condoning  the delay is bad?

(d)     What decision have and given in this matter?

8.              The Tribunal observed on a careful consideration of  the submissions made that all that was found in the appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

authority’s order dated 11.7.2001 was a narration of charges  made against the respondent and it did not independently  apply its mind to the materials before it before proceeding to  dispose of the matter.  The Tribunal also took note of the fact  that a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report had not been  supplied to the respondent although the same was mandatory  under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services  (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.  It observed that  even the said aspect had not been considered by the appellate  authority.  

9.              It was also noted that although it was mandatory on  the part of the Government to consult the Public Service  Commission in case of passing an order of removal from  service, such consultation does not appear to have taken place  as the counter affidavit filed was silent in that regard.  

10.             On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal  concluded that the appellate authority had not exercised its  independent discretion while awarding the enhanced  punishment of removal from service.  

11.             The reasoning of the Administrative Tribunal was  duly considered and endorsed by the High Court in the Writ  Petition filed by the appellants herein.  The High Court  observed that although the appellate authority had the power  to enhance the punishment, it was also the duty of the  appellate authority to consider the grounds and then only to  reject the appeal.  The High Court also observed that though  in the same proceeding, the appellate authority came to a  conclusion that the punishment was required to be enhanced,  without considering the grounds raised by the respondents, it  simply enhanced the punishment, which was illegal and  contrary to law.  On the said reasoning, the High Court  dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.  

12.             Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. H.S.  Gururaja Rao, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that while  confirming an order against which an appeal has been  preferred, the appellate authority is not required to pass a  reasoned order since the order impugned was before him and  he was merely endorsing the same.  

13.             In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr.  Gururaja Rao referred to a Constitution Bench decision of this  Court in State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan [AIR 1966 S.C.  1827], which was a case involving compulsory retirement of a  civil servant in which the aforesaid question had arisen.   Repelling the argument of Mr. Setalvad that even while  affirming an order, an authority acting in a quasi-judicial  character should indicate some reasons as to why it accepted  the findings of the lower forum, this Court held that having  regard to the material which is made available to the State  Government, it would be somewhat unreasonable to suggest  that the State Government must record its reasons why it  accepted the findings of the Tribunal.   This Court went on to  observe further that even while differing with the order of the  lower forum, the State Government was merely required to  give reasons why it differs though it was not necessary that  such reasons should be detailed or elaborate.  The conclusion  arrived at by the Constitution Bench was that where the State  Government agrees with the findings of the Tribunal which are  against the delinquent officer, it could not be said as a matter  of law that the State Government could not impose penalty  against the delinquent officer in accordance with the findings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

of the Tribunal, unless it gave reasons to show why the said  findings were accepted by it.

14.             In this regard reference was also made to two other  decisions of this Court; (i) Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of India  & Ors. [(1969) 2 S.C.R. 177], and (ii) Tara Chand Khatri Vs.  Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. [(1977) 1 S.C.C. 472]  where the aforesaid sentiments were reiterated.   Mr. Gururaja  Rao urged that since this was a serious matter involving  embezzlement of Government funds, the lacuna in the orders  passed by the appellate and revisional authorities should not  be taken as fatal, since the Divisional Forest Officer had dealt  with the charges and the response of the respondents thereto  in great detail.   

15.             Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel  appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted  that both the Administrative Tribunal as also the High Court  had correctly come to the conclusion that neither the appellate  authority nor the revisional authority had applied their minds  to the appeal and the revision preferred by the respondent and  the orders passed by the said authorities had been correctly  set aside by the Administrative Tribunal on such basis.   Learned counsel further urged that certain mandatory  provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,  Control and Appeal) Rules, had not been followed and as  rightly pointed out both by the Tribunal as also the High  Court, although the Conservator of Forests as the appellate  authority was empowered to enhance the punishment  awarded by the Divisional Forest Officer, he was required to  deal with the response to the show cause notice with more  application, instead of simply enhancing the punishment  without giving any reasons therefor.  He also urged that non- supply of the Enquiry Officer’s Report was another fatal defect  under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules. He urged that the order  of the High Court did not warrant any interference and the  appeal was liable to be dismissed.   

16.             In support of his submissions, Mr. Ramakrishna  Reddy referred to the decision of this Court in R.P. Bhatt Vs.  Union of India & ors. [(1986) 2 S.C.C. 651] wherein it was  observed that while considering an appeal against an order  enhancing any penalty under the Central Civil Services  (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, requirements of  Rule 27(2) must be complied with and consideration would  mean a finding of satisfaction as to whether the procedure laid  down in the Rules had been complied with and if not complied  with, whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation  of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of  justice.  Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted that the three  cases cited by Mr. Gururaja Rao had already been referred to  and ultimately the appeal was allowed with the direction on  the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal before him  afresh after applying his mind to the requirements of Rule  27(2) of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1965.

17.             The next case referred to by Mr. Reddy is Ram  Chander Vs. Union of India & ors. [(1986) 3 S.C.C. 103]  where the decision in R.P. Bhatt’s case (supra) was followed.

18.             Having considered the submissions made on behalf  of the respective parties and also having regard to the detailed  manner in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal  had dealt with the matter, including the explanation given  regarding the disbursement of the money received by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

respondent, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by  the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed by the High Court.   No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in  detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to  give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by  the respondent.  A similar duty was cast on the revisional  authority being the highest authority in the Department of  Forests in the State.  Unfortunately, even the revisional  authority has merely indicated that the decision of the  Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the  Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of  misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider  the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and  simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing  it to removal from service.   

19.             It is no doubt also true that an appellate or  revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for  agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum  but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent  officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or  revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision.   It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but  some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order  affirming the views of the lower forum.  20.             Having regard to the above, we are not inclined to  interfere with the order of the High Court and the appeal is  accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.