IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 16628 of 2008 Decided on : 9.12.2010 ___________________________________________________________ Kamaljeet Singh …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge ( Oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of office order dated 14.2.2002 Annexure A-4 vide which the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty of warning and treating the period of absence as dies-non which will have effect on service benefits of petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of communication dated 27.5.2002 Annexure A-6 informing the petitioner that the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority. It has also been prayed that respondents may be directed to consider to grant leave of the kind due to the petitioner for the period of illness. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner joined as Driver in respondent No.1-Corporation in the year 1988. The petitioner fell ill on 11.12.2001. He informed the Adda Incharge. Local Unit, Shimla of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 Corporation that on account of his illness he would not be in a position to perform his duties. He would submit his medical certificate on joining the duty. The petitioner got himself checked up at Jain Clinic, Shimla. The doctor advised one month rest to the petitioner. The petitioner was declared fit for duty on 12.1.2002 and, therefore, petitioner joined his duty on 12.1.2002. 3. The respondent No.3 without considering the medical certificate and illness of the petitioner issued charge-sheet to petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on 16.1.2002. The petitioner submitted reply to charge-sheet alongwith medical certificate and had shown cause why he could not discharge his duty. The allegation of misbehaviour with Adda Incharge was also explained. 4. The respondent No.3 without due application of mind vide Annexure A-4 imposed penalty of warning and period of absence was treated as dies-non which will have effect on service benefits of petitioner. The petitioner filed statutory appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority without due application of mind rejected the appeal vide memo dated 2.5.2002 conveyed to petitioner by respondent No.3 on 27.5.2002 vide Annexure A-6. The petitioner has challenged the punishment order and appellate order on the ground that both the authorities have failed to apply their mind while imposing penalty and dismissing the appeal. The penalty of dies-non shall affect his all service benefits. The dies non is not a statutory penalty and as such cannot be imposed. The impugned orders are non speaking. The penalty imposed is harsh in view of alleged misconduct attributed to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed the reply in which preliminary objection of jurisdiction has been taken. On merits, it has been stated that 3 petitioner remained willfully absent without any information to the employer. The illness projected by the petitioner was just an excuse to overcome his unauthorized absence. The petitioner had not informed about his illness to the respondents. The medical checkup from Jain Clinic is an after thought just to defraud the authorities. The medical certificate is not from the Government hospital. The competent authorities have considered the case of the petitioner from all angles after due application of mind. The respondents have supported the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand of the petitioner pleaded in the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders. The office order dated 14.2.2002 indicates that it is on proforma which has been filled in and is as follows :- “Whereas Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, Driver, Himachal Road Transport Corporpn., Local Unit, Shimla-12 was chargesheeted under Rule 16 of CCS(CC&A) Rule 1965 vide chargesheet No. HRTC-LSL-1-Estt.(DVR) 10844 dated 16.1.02 by the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. 2. And whereas Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, Driver has furnished his reply to the above chargesheet which has been considered carefully and found un-satisfactory. 3. Now, therefore, after careful consideration of the relevant records the undersigned in exercise of the power vested in him under CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf hereby warned the said Sh.Kamaljeet Singh, Driver and the period of absence sanctioned as dies-non which will effect on all the benefit of service.” 7. The petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority in which he has raised several points. The dismissal of the appeal of the 4 petitioner was communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 27.5.2002 informing him that the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed vide memo dated 2.5.2002. The appellate authority or the authority communicating the dismissal of the appeal of petitioner has not annexed the decision of the appellate authority with the letter dated 27.5.2002 informing the petitioner the grounds of dismissal of the appeal. The communication dated 27.5.2002 does not disclose the grounds on which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 8. In Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2006) 4 SCC 713 and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others 2009 (1) scale 284, it has been held that the penalty order and appellate order should be reasoned order. It does not emerge from the impugned orders that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have passed the respective orders by due application of mind. Hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable. 9. No other point was urged. 10. The result of the above discussion, the office order dated 14.2.2002 Annexure A-4 and communication dated 27.5.2002 Annexure A-6 are quashed and set-aside with liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law from the stage of the reply of petitioner. No costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), December 9, 2010, Judge. (GR)