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 companysider a whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been companyplied with and if number, whether such number compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice b whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record and c whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and pass orders companyfirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
The short point involved in this Appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated November 20, 1980 dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant, is whether the appellate Order passed by the Director General, Border Roads Organisation dated October 14, 1980, is in companyformity with the requirements of Rule 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.
On July 1, 1978 the Officer Commanding forwarded the order of termination issued by the Chief Engineer, but on representation by the appellant, the Director General, Border Roads Organisation by order dated November 17, 1978 cancelled the order of termination presumably on a misapprehension that the period of probation having expired, numberorder of termination companyld be made.
Thereupon, the Officer companymanding by a movement order dated June 27, 1978 transferred the appellant to 19 Border Roads Task Force.
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 Dantak by an order dated June, 24, 1978 terminated the services of appellant.
He however directed the taking of disciplinary action against the appellant as a deserter since he had absconded from service to evade the service of the order of termination.
Against the order of removal, the appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules before the Director General, Border Roads Organisation.
The order of termination however companyld number be served on the appellant as he absented himself without leave.
