CWP(T) No. 2914 of 2008. 10.07.2009 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 21st January, 1992. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner on 24th February, 1995. He assailed this order before the Learned Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. (D) No. 470 of 1995. The Tribunal directed the O.A. to be treated as representation to Secretary (Corporation). He decided the same and the decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 31st July, 1995. A bare perusal of this communication reveals that the same is neither reasoned nor self contained. It is settled law by now that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority should be self-contained and reasoned. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others, 2009 (1) Scale, 284 have held as under:- “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority is not : 2 : 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 selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The material 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 proceedings, 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 was 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.” In chairman Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that : 3 : though no detailed reasons may be necessary to be given by the Appellate Authority while affirming the order. However, some reasons should be assigned to show due application of mind. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure A-7 dated 31.07.1995 is quashed and set aside. The Secretary (Corporation) is directed to decide the appeal afresh by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today. He shall also hear the petitioner. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 10, 2009. Bhupender