IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 11998 of 2008. Decided on 5th January, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Baldev Ram. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 30.05.2000. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner on 14.07.2000. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the same on 08.11.2000 (Annexure A-8), without passing a speaking order. Once the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, the same ought to have been decided by the Appellate Authority by passing a speaking order, after taking into consideration the grounds/pleas taken therein. It is now well settled that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority must 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. NO. - 2 - be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of 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 assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof. 3. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give - 3 - reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 08.11.2000 (Annexure A-8) is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 16.08.2000 afresh after taking into consideration the grounds/pleas taken therein by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall also take into consideration that petitioner had already put in 21 years’ service when the penalty of removal was imposed upon him. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 05, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `