IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 11569 of 2008. Decided on 03.06.2011. _____________________________________________________ Niaz Deen. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was transferred from the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Una to the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Chamba vide office order dated 29th August, 2003. He was relieved on 10th September, 2003. As per the averments contained in the petition, he applied for casual leave on 9th September, 2003. He fell ill on 10th September, 2003 and applied for extension of leave on 11th September, 2003 vide telegram dated 11th September, 2003 sent to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Una. Thereafter, he remained under treatment of Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Amb from 10th September, 2003 to 23rd September, 2003 and thereafter remained under treatment of Dr. J.S. Banyal, M.B.B.S. Retired Medical Officer, Grand Hospital Amb, District Una from 24th September, 2003 to 12th March, 2004. He submitted application to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner through the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Chamba 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - vide letter dated 6th April, 2004 for sanctioning of 175 days medical leave. Respondent No. 3, i.e., Excise and Taxation Commissioner Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide Annexure A-5, dated 24th June, 2005 ordered to treat the period w.e.f. 20.09.2003 to 12.03.2004 as ‘Dies Non’ (no pay and no pension benefits for the period of absence). Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 24th June, 2004 to the Secretary (Excise and Taxation), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 30th July, 2004. The same was rejected by the Principal Secretary (Excise & Taxation), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 30th September, 2004 (Annexure A-8). A bare perusal of order dated 30th September, 2004 makes it abundantly clear that the appeal has been rejected without a speaking/detailed order. Once the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to decide the same by passing a speaking/detailed order in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the grounds/pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of 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 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 - 3 - of selfsame 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 inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be 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. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-8, dated 30th September, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to rehear the appeal and decide the same afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking/detailed order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be heard in person and for that purpose, the date shall be notified to him by the appellate authority separately. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 03, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - - 5 - `