IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2737 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010. Tarlochan Singh, ASI .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police. He seeks quashing of the order dated 30.4.2005 (Annexure P-3) whereby his one year service has been forfeited for the purpose to with- C.W.P.No .2737 of 2010 2 hold one increment with cumulative effect. The afore-stated order has been passed after holding a regular departmental enquiry under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the subsequent orders dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-5), 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities including the order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, dismissing his Appeal and Revision Petitions. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, in his capacity as Revisional Authority is bereft of any reason and is wholly cryptic. There can indeed be no doubt that the order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-8) does not assign any reason whatsoever for rejecting the petitioner's appeal/revision as it simply says that after considering the facts, the same has been rejected. It is well known that the performance of quasi-judicial duties entails the authorities with a responsibility to disclose the reason, so that in the event of challenge, the Courts may understand or appreciate as to what prompted the authority to pass the said order. The petitioner is said to have demanded a personal hearing also but the same was not accorded without any reason. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-8) cannot sustain and the same is hereby quashed. The Director General of Police, Punjab is directed to reconsider the revision/appeal, preferred by the petitioner and disposed of the same by passing a speaking order, preferably giving him opportunity C.W.P.No .2737 of 2010 3 of personal hearing. The appropriate order shall be passed within a period of 4 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 17-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE