IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7397 of 2008 Decided on: 8.12.2010 Parkash Chand …Petitioner Versus H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Ms. Bhawna Dutta, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, however, the same has been rejected by the Board of Directors vide Annexure A-6, dated 8.9.1999. A bare perusal of Annexure A-6 makes it abundantly clear that the order passed by the Board of Directors is neither speaking nor reasoned. 2. It is settled law by now that the appellate order should be speaking/detailed. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No the appellate authority are not supported by any -2- reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have 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 materials 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 proceeding 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 were 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. 3. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 8.9.1999 is quashed and set aside. The Board of Directors shall re-hear the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, by passing a -3- speaking/reasoned order, within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall be heard in person and for that purpose he shall be notified the date of hearing. The respondent-Corporation is directed to inform the petitioner about the present order/judgment passed by this Court. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 8, 2010 (K. Attri)