Disciplinary appeals must comply with Rule 27(2) and provide an effective hearing.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Director General of Police dismissing his departmental appeal against the penalty imposed upon him.

He contended that the appellate authority had failed to comply with Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The State opposed the petition and supported the impugned order.

Upon examining the record, the High Court found that the appeal had not been considered in accordance with the requirements of Rule 27(2) and that no effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner.

Whether the appellate authority considered the petitioner’s departmental appeal in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Whether the appellate order dated 04.09.2018 was liable to be set aside for failure to examine the procedural compliance, evidentiary findings, proportionality of penalty, and for denial of an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which requires an appellate authority, while examining an appeal against a penalty, to consider: (a) whether the prescribed procedure was followed and whether any non-compliance caused constitutional violation or failure of justice; (b) whether the disciplinary authority’s findings were supported by the evidence; and (c) whether the penalty was adequate, inadequate, or severe.

After such consideration, the appellate authority may confirm, enhance, reduce, or set aside the penalty, or remit the matter for fresh consideration. The rule also requires a legally meaningful and effective consideration of the appeal, including observance of principles of natural justice.

The High Court found that the Director General of Police had not considered the appeal in the manner mandated by Rule 27(2). The appellate order dealt only with the procedural aspect and failed to undertake the required examination of the disciplinary findings and the proportionality of the penalty.

Further, the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the appellate order was passed, amounting to non-compliance with the statutory appellate procedure and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appellate order could not be sustained.

The matter was remitted to the Director General of Police, as appellate authority, for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with Rule 27(2) and law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within 45 days from receipt of the order. The appellate authority was also permitted to take cognizance of the memorandum dated 13.09.2019 issued by the competent authority after due approval of the Director General of Police. No costs were awarded.