IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2741/2008 Decided on: 18.3. 2009 Rattan Chand. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner was removed from service vide office order dated 14.2.1992. He preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Divisional Manager. The same was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 6.1.1993. The order dated 6.1.1993 is non- speaking. It is well settled law by now that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority must be reasoned/speaking and the Appellate Authority should also take into consideration the grounds mentioned in the appeal. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure PG dated 6.1.1993 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to re-hear the petitioner and decide the appeal afresh and while doing so, he will take into consideration all the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. It is also clarified that the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the past record of the petitioner without issuing him any show-cause notice. The past record though can be taken into consideration but before doing so the incumbent has to be heard. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. 18.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*