IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2640 of 2008. Decided on: 10.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri R.C. Sharma … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after the receipt of the inquiry report has imposed the following penalty on 27.6.1992: “Now, therefore, the undersigned imposes the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages from Rs. 2400/- to Rs. 2250/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 per month for a period of three years with immediate effect upon Er. R.C. Sharma, Junior Engineer. It is further ordered that Er. R.C. Sharma, Junior Engineer, will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not effect the postponing his future increments of pay.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 The petitioner preferred an appeal against order dated 27.6.1992. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 23.8.1994. It is evident from the grounds of appeal that the petitioner has taken specific grounds of violation of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 etc. However, the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration all the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. It is settled law by now that the Appellate Authority has to pass a speaking order and all the grounds mentioned in the grounds of appeal have to be considered by the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is sketchy. It has also been held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others, (2006) 4 SCC 713, State of Uttaranchal and others versus Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 and in a latest judgment rendered in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab national Bank & others, 2009 (1) Scale 284 that the appellate order should be a speaking order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.8.1994, Annexure A-18 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to re-hear the appeal. The Appellate Authority shall take into consideration all the grounds mentioned in the appeal, i.e. Annexure A-16. He will pass a speaking order within eight weeks from today after hearing the petitioner as well. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 10, 2009. (cr) 3