CWP (T) No. 5621 of 2008 15.5.2010 Present: Mr.G.R.Palsara, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General, and Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. 1. Mr. Palsara invited my attention to the various orders passed by the authorities with respect to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner, a Forest Guard was Incharge of the Kelodhar check post of Seri Range of Karsog Forest Division. He allegedly allowed a vehicle carrying timber without permit to pass through the said check post. Consequently, the respondent-authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. In effect the charge being:- (i) Illicit export of timber by truck No. HPS-7497 – Tempering with Govt. check post register; (ii) Gross negligence in performance of Govt. duty. 3. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the article of charge. Consequently, before imposing the penalty the disciplinary authority served notice upon him. The response submitted by the petitioner was taken into account and on 15th May, 1996, the disciplinary authorized imposed the following penalty:- “Stoppage of five increments of pay with cumulative effect. This order will come in force with immediate effect.” 4. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner filed an appeal which stands dismissed in terms of order dated 6th February, 1998, which reads as under:- “Reference your memo No.B.4.7(B)5482 dated 28.8.97 2 2. The appeal preferred by Shri Padam Singh, Forest Guard has been considered and is hereby rejected. The following records received with your memo. referred to above are returned herewith in original. (i) Enquiry case file containing pages 1 to 101 alongwith note sheet. 3. the official be informed suitably. Jai Hind. ….. Endst. No.B.4.7(B) 10854055 dated Mandi, 6.2.98.” 5. There is another order dated 13th February, 1997 on record whereby also the appeal/representation was rejected. This order reads as under:- “The appeal dated 15.10.96 as made by Shri Padam Singh, Forest Guard on the above subject has been considered and rejected. Please information accordingly.” 6. Mr.Palsara, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the statement of Shri Dhirmal to support his contention that the case set up against the petitioner is patently false. I am not inclined to agree with such contention as there is enough material on record (Annexure A-16) to show that the report of the Inquiry Officer, prima facie, appears to be correct. 7. Be that as it may be, Mr. Palsara contended that since the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal without assigning any reason and the Inquiry Officer has not appreciated and discussed complete mater/evidence on record, as such, orders dated 13.2.1997 and 6.2.1998 be quashed and the Appellate Authority be directed to decide the appeal by furnishing reasons. 8. The orders passed by the Appellate/Revisional Authority undoubtedly do not contain any reasons. It is not a speaking order. Nothing 3 has been produced to show that reasons had been separately recorded by the Appellate Authority. 9. In this view of the matter, order dated 6.2.1998 and 13.2.1997 are quashed. The respondents are directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to add, petitioner would be afforded due opportunity of hearing/representation and the order containing reasons shall also be communicated to him. 10. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. May 15, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) *BRB* Judge.