such authority. Unless the appellate authority examines the said aspects and assign brief reasons, mere extracting the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission does not satisfy the requirements of the statutory rule and that would not amount to giving of reasons. Besides looking into the factual aspects, the appellate authority is also enjoined with the duty to examine whether there is any procedural defect or violation or error in imposing the penalty and Clause (ii) of Rule 23(1) and discard any error or defect or procedural violation in imposing the penalty, if the authority finds that such error or defect or violation is not material or injustice to the person concerned or affect the decision. A penalty suffered by a government servant affects his service and monetary benefits and casts a stigma in his career. It is well known that penalty suffered by a government servant is counted for promotion to higher posts. Right to consider for promotion has been recognized as a statutory right and therefore, when the authority is vested with the jurisdiction of testing the correctness of penalty, circumscribed by certain parameters , it is imperative that such authority has to scrupulously follow the parameters set out in the rule. All the more, if the government servant is inflicted with a major penalty of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement, whereby he is deprived of his right to earn through employment, the protection given under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, supported by statutory rules, the procedure to be followed and the factors to be taken into account by the disciplinary and appellate authorities cannot be simply disregarded by such authorities to the detriment of the employee. The Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC. Mazdoor Congress reported in 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 609, held that, "The right to life includes right of livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right of work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them.
