“ ... 18. It is seen from Rule 23 that in the event of an appeal against an order, imposing any penalty, the appellate authority should consider whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate and then pass orders. In this case, the appelate authority has passed a cryptic order. In fact, the appellate authority gave personal hearing and after recording the same, straightaway confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority without any discussion or assigning any reasons holding that on examination of the documents and evidences, no new ground has been made or any evidence has been let in by the petitioner and therefore the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. A reading of the order of the appellate authority, extracted above, would make it clear that Rule 23 has not been complied with. There is no discussion whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and whether the penalty is proportionate to the charges. ....”
