IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2195 of 2008, Decided on: 07.04.2009. Dhani Ram. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?Yes.1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He furnished the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority on 22.8.1990 imposed the following penalty upon the petitioner:- “Now therefore, the undersigned keeping in view the facts of the case has come to the decision to impose a minor penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and the period of willful absence w.e.f. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. - 2 - 14.11.1983 to 20.12.1983 and 5.5.1984 to 16.6.1984 is treated as DIES NON. Shri Dhani Ram O.T. will not get any arrear etc. except subsistence allowance which he has already drawn during suspension. However, the period of suspension will be counted towards pension.” He preferred a detailed appeal before the Appellate Authority on 10.11.1990. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was not decided by the Appellate Authority. He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application. The learned Tribunal on 13.5.1992 directed the Original Application to be treated as representation to the Secretary (Education). He was directed to decide the same within a period of four months. He decided the same on 13.4.1993. Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate has strenuously argued that the order dated 13.4.1993 is non-speaking/unreasoned. He then submitted that the Appellate Authority was required to pass reasoned/self-contained order after taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. He has relied upon Narinder Mohan Arya versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2006) 4 SCC 713, State of Uttaranchal and Others versus Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 and in a latest judgment rendered in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank & others, 2009 (1) Scale, 284. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that though the order dated 13.4.1993 is not very detailed order, but the basic ingredients contained in the appeal have been taken into consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. - 3 - The petitioner has taken as many as six grounds in his memo of appeal dated 10.11.1990. The Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration any of these grounds while deciding the appeal on 13.4.1993. The order dated 13.4.1993 is neither self-contained nor reasoned. It is settled by now that the appellate order must be self-contained/reasoned and speaking. It is the duty cast upon the Appellate Authority to pass speaking orders since the orders passed by it are assailable before the courts of law. It is settled law by now that the appellate order must be a speaking order as has repeatedly been held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2006) 4 SCC 713, State of Uttaranchal and Others versus Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 and in a latest judgment rendered in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank & others, 2009 (1) Scale, 284. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank & others, 2009 (1) Scale-284 have held as under:- “17. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned.” Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Annexure P-8, dated 13.4.1993 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has superannuated on 31.8.2007, - 4 - this aspect shall also be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal. No costs. April 7, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 5 -