IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. L.P.A. No. 67 of 2010. Decided on 24.06.2010. Satya Parkash. ….. Appellant. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant. : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Whether an appellate authority should pass a speaking order in an appeal against an order imposing penalty, is the issue arising for consideration in this case. 2. This is an appeal by the writ petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14th October, 2009, passed in CWP(T) No. 2944 of 2008. Writ petitioner was imposed a penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect in the disciplinary proceedings. Writ petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. That __________________________________ 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 appeal was disposed of as per Annexure PB with the writ petition. The appellate order reads as follows: “The appeal of the F.G. for waving off the penalty imposed vide your office order No. 192 dated 23.1.89 has been considered and rejected. Please inform the applicant accordingly. The case received vide your letter quoted above, is returned herewith in original. Sd/- Conservator of Forests, Mandi Forest Circle, Mandi.” 3. We are afraid in a case where the petitioner has been pursuing his grievances and making an attempt for change of heart before the appellate authority in the matter of imposition of major penalty, the appeal could not have been rejected in the manner extracted above. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the appellate authority has in fact considered the whole matter in detail; but the communication does not reflect any such consideration. Had the appeal been considered on merit, the consideration should have been reflected in the appellate order. Where the incumbents pursue their grievance against the penalty, they have a right to make an attempt for change of heart, before the appellate authority and they must get that opportunity and the appellate authority is bound to pass a considered order lest it should amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, leaving open the questions of law, but with a direction to the third respondent-appellate authority to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner and pass a speaking order on the appeal, adverting to the contentions taken by the 3 petitioner. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition by the appellant/writ petitioner. 4. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 24th June, 2010 (bhupender/awasthi)