C.W.P. No. 22838 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 22838 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 13.12.2011 Bhagwan Singh ..........Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mattewal, Advocate for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 18.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by Deputy Secretary/Technical-2, PSEB, Patiala, vide which, three increments of the petitioner have been stopped without cumulative effect and recovery of ` 14,400/- has been ordered to be effected and also for quashing of order dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure P- 10) passed by Deputy Secretary/Technical-2, PSEB, Patiala, vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by passing totally a non-speaking order Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that same and similar charges were there against the petitioner as well as one Pavitar Singh, however, only warning has been awarded to said Pavitar Singh, whereas, punishment of stoppage of three annual increments and recovery of ` 14,400/- has been awarded to the petitioner without mentioning any C.W.P. No. 22838 of 2010 (2) reason thereof. The order passed by the appellate authority is also totally non-speaking and only by writing one word “rejected”, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that reasoning has been given while considering the case of the petitioner but the same is on the file. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are different from Pavitar Singh and he cannot claim parity with Pavitar Singh. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the orders passed by the punishing authority as well as appellate authority. Simply the charge-sheet has been reproduced in the order passed by punishing authority and the punishment has been awarded without any discussion with regard to allegations. Even it has not been mentioned in the order as to how the case of the petitioner is different from the case of Pavitar Singh who has been given warning. Similarly the appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by simply writing “rejected”. The petitioner filed detailed appeal but nothing has been considered by the appellate authority. Simply by stating that allegations against the petitioner were not at par with said Pavitar Singh is not sufficient. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show neither from the order of the punishing authority nor from the order of the appellate authority that any reasoning has been given. It appears from the orders passed by the punishing authority as well as appellate authority that no application of mind is there while passing the impugned orders. The orders of both the authorities i.e. punishing as well as appellate authority are totally non-speaking and no reasoning whatsoever has been given. It is also not clear from the orders that how the reply filed by the petitioner has not been found satisfactory and how the case of the petitioner was different from said Pavitar Singh. C.W.P. No. 22838 of 2010 (3) In view of the facts mentioned above, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.7.2006 and 22.4.2009 passed by the punishing as well as appellate authority, respectively, are set aside. However, the punishing authority is at liberty to pass a fresh well reasoned speaking order after considering the reply of charge-sheet and case of Pavitar Singh, who was also issued the same charge-sheet. December 13, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE