IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5072 of 2008. Decided on: 15.06.2010. _____________________________________________________ S.N. Modgil. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. T.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure A-3. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - for a period not exceeding three years, reducing his pay from Rs.2775/- + Rs.50 AP to Rs.2700/- + Rs.50 AP with effect from 1st July, 1998 vide order dated 23rd July, 1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of Disciplinary Authority. The appellate authority rejected the same on 9th January, 1998 without a speaking order. It is well settled by now that the appellate order must be speaking, detailed and reasoned. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570 have held as under (para 17):- “Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is - 3 - well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 3. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240 their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, (2010) 2 SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. 4. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Appellate Order dated 9th January, 1998 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal and decide the same in view of the grounds taken in the appeal by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 15, 2010. (sck).