Disciplinary appeals require reasoned consideration of evidence and grounds under Regulation 34.

The petitioner, a KSRTC Traffic Inspector, was charged with misconduct, including violation of Clause 27(C) of General Standing Order No. 282/80.

Following a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority ordered two annual increments to be withheld permanently with cumulative effect.

The petitioner’s appeal under Regulation 34 of the KSRTC Conduct and Disciplinary Regulations, 1971 was rejected.

He challenged both orders under Article 226, arguing, among other things, that the evidence did not establish the charge and that the appellate authority had failed to address his grounds.

The High Court noted that the inquiry evidence concerned a later period and that the inquiry report did not discuss the alleged breach of Clause 27(C).

Whether the appellate authority complied with Regulation 34 by considering the petitioner’s grounds and assessing whether the disciplinary findings were supported by the evidence.

Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders could stand where the findings and appellate decision lacked adequate consideration and reasons.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review administrative and disciplinary decisions for legality.

Under Regulation 34(2) of the KSRTC Conduct and Disciplinary Regulations, 1971, an appellate authority considering an appeal against a penalty must examine whether the prescribed procedure was followed, whether the disciplinary findings are warranted by the evidence on record, and whether the penalty is adequate, inadequate, or severe; it must then make an appropriate decision on the penalty or remit the matter.

The appellate authority must therefore apply its mind to the grounds of appeal and give reasons sufficient to show that the matters specified in the Regulation have been considered.

The petitioner had specifically challenged the evidentiary basis of the inquiry findings, including the mismatch between the period addressed by the witnesses and the period covered by the charge, and the absence of discussion concerning Clause 27(C).

The Court observed that Regulation 34(2)(b) required the appellate authority to verify whether the findings were supported by the record, but the authority had not adequately considered the petitioner’s grounds or given reasons for rejecting them.

The appellate order was consequently unreasoned and contrary to Regulation 34.

The appellate authority was directed to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within six months of receiving the Court’s order.