IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8162 of 1989 Date of decision: 25.03.2010 Dharam Pal (deceased) through his LRs. ….Petitioner versus The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr.A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The orders that have been given place to this writ petition is the charge-sheet purported to have been issued on 02.12.1987 and the ultimate enquiry that yielded to a finding that the petitioner had been guilty of the charges on the basis of which the Appointing Authority took a decision to dismiss him from service. Making reference to the fact that the charge was that the petitioner had tampered with the weigh bridge and caused loss, modification order was issued subsequently directing that the amount of loss alleged to have been caused shall also to be deducted from the gratuity amounts payable to the petitioner. The Civil Writ Petition No.8162 of 1989 - 2 - modification order came to be issued on 02.11.1988 that was nearly 6 months after the original order of dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have preferred an appeal to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who had directed the matter to be considered before the Administrator. The Administrator passed a laconic order on 26.12.1988 stating that no appeal was admissible and directed the appeal to be 'filed'. 2. The petitioner has contended before this Court that the reply to the show cause notice issued had been given, pointing out to the mistakes in the enquiry report and that the punishment inflicted was not in accordance with evidence. His further contention is that the modification in the order could not have been passed without further affording an opportunity to explain how the amount assessed as loss caused by the petitioner could be deducted from the gratuity payable. As the last limb of argument, it is contended by the learned counsel that the appeal had been disposed of without meeting the objections raised to the order of the disciplinary authority and being a non-speaking order, it vitiates the principles of natural justice. 3. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel also points out that the charge-sheet referred to an alleged tampering of the weigh bridge that was purported to have caused a loss to the extent of Rs.4650/-, but the enquiry report referred to two transactions causing losses of Rs.44,969.20 and Rs.1142/-. It must be immediately noticed that this discrepancy was not shown even in the reply to the show cause notice, as also the correctness of the Enquiry Officer's report as regards the extent Civil Writ Petition No.8162 of 1989 - 3 - of loss had not even been referred in the appeal to the Appellate Authority or in the writ petition. The reference to a loss of Rs.4650/- has still some significance for if charge-sheet would refer to loss of Rs.4650/-, and the Enquiry Officer's report would show to an alleged loss of Rs.44,969.20 and Rs.1142/- as having been caused by the petitioner, the matter obtains significance ultimately because the modification order issued is only on the basis of the alleged loss caused by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.46,111.20. There is no representation for the respondent and it is not possible to elicit the discrepancy as shown by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is also further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority namely, the Administrator had been directed to hear the appeal when it had been originally presented before the Registrar and the Administrator could not have dismissed the appeal as not admissible before him. Even the manner of disposal by the Appellate Authority merely rejecting it without considering the merits of the contentions raised does not conform to law. 5. The arguments submitted by the learned counsel that the orders of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal without setting out the reasons and without passing an order is vitiated, does not, in my view, appear to be a correct statement of law, for, if the disciplinary authority gives a reasoned decision and the Appellate Authority merely affirms the same, there is no need for giving out any reasons. A statement by the Appellate Authority that there is no need for interference and a mere affirmation would be sufficient. However, the Civil Writ Petition No.8162 of 1989 - 4 - learned counsel refers me to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Ramanathan Versus The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and others-2001(4) RSJ 375, that a dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Authority by non-speaking order without indicating reasons for dismissing the same would be not sustainable. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The learned counsel also refers to an earlier decision in Ram Chander Versus Union of India and others-AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1173, that dealt with a case under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and referring to Rules 22 and 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a mere mechanical reproduction of phraseology obtains in the rules and dismissal of the appeal without a reasoned decision shall be bad and that consideration of fair play and justice would require that a personal hearing must be given. 6. I am examining the case of the year 1989 relating to the incident said to have been taken place in the year 1987. The writ petitioner himself has died during the proceedings and it is being prosecuted by the legal representatives. My initial impulse was to dispose of the writ petition on merits with the records at hand and not remit it to the authorities. However, I notice several discrepancies such as, variation in the charge-sheet and the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding the amount assessed as the loss caused to the respondents, which was also sought to be recovered through the modification order. The mode of dismissal of the Administrator that the appeal was not admissible when the order which takes a shape of resolution itself recites Civil Writ Petition No.8162 of 1989 - 5 - that the appeal had been brought before him for consideration by transmission of papers by the Registrar to him. Unfortunately the respondents remain unrepresented and I am unable to obtain sufficient lucidity in the grey areas involved in this case and, therefore, I am compelled, albeit with reluctance, to remit the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration in the light of observations made above. He is requested to pass a speaking order giving out the reasons after serving the petitioners with a notice of hearing and allowing the right of representation. Having regarding to the extraordinary length of time that the case has taken, it shall be the endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 7. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.03.2010 sanjeev