IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6228 of 2008. Decided on: 26.07.2010. __________________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar-III. … Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner. : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority vide report dated 26th March, 1998. The petitioner was issued show cause notice. He filed reply to the same on 1st July, 1998. However, the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty of reduction in pay by one stage from Rs.4020/- to Rs.3900/- in the pay-scale of Rs.3120-5160 for a period of two years with effect from 1.8.1998 upon the petitioner. It was also ordered that during the period of reduction he will not earn his usual increments of pay and that on the expiry of the said period of reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. However, he was held entitled to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - subsistence allowances already paid to him during the period of suspension w.e.f. 24.6.1995 to 28.10.1995, i.e. 127 days. 2. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal to the Divisional Manager against the order of penalty, dated 6th August, 1998. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29th January, 1999 (Annexure P-5). A bare perusal of rejection order Annexure P-5, which is the outcome of statutory appeal, shows that the same is neither reasoned nor speaking. It is well settled by now that the appellate order must be speaking and reasoned to enable the Court to see whether there is due application of mind or not. Accordingly, Annexure P-5, dated 29th January, 1999 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal after taking into consideration the pleas/grounds raised by the petitioner in the statutory appeal. The needful shall be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of supply of the certified copy of the judgment alongwith a copy of the petition by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. It is made clear that since Annexure A-5 stands quashed and set aside, consequently, Annexure A-6 shall also stand quashed and set aside. 3. With the observations made hereinabove, the appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 26, 2010. (sck).