IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.8478 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 12, 2011. Raksha Rani .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.J.S.Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a retired Principal from the Government Model Senior Secondary School, PAP Campus, Jalandhar. Vide an order dated 9/18.8.2010, a punishment of 5% cut in pension has been imposed upon her pursuant to the departmental enquiry. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal under the Punjab Civil Services CWP No.8478 of 2011 [2] (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The said appeal was dismissed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Education Department (Schools) vide the impugned order dated 7/17.1.2011 primarily on the plea that the same was “time barred” and “no fresh point” has been attached therein. Suffice to mention here that both the reasons are wholly mis- conceived and mis-placed. Firstly, it was not the case where the appeal of the petitioner can be termed to be hopelessly time barred. The endeavour of a quasi-judicial authority should be to decide the case on merits in stead of invoking hyper-technicalities. Secondly, whatever plea has been taken by the petitioner in her grounds of appeal, it is obligatory for the Appellate Authority to consider and deal with the same while deciding the appeal on merits. No such exercise has been undertaken while passing the impugned order which is totally cryptic and non-speaking. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part; the impugned appellate order dated 7.1.2011 issued on 17.1.2011 is set-aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The Appellate Authority shall be at liberty to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. May 12, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE