IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 8946 of 2008. Decided on: 06.07.2010. _____________________________________________________ Ramesh Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner vide office order dated 26th June, 2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, i.e., Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation dismissed the appeal on 25th September, 2001. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 26th June, 2001 and the appellate order dated 25th September, 2001 are neither speaking nor reasoned. It is now well settled that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds raised in the memorandum of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. 2. 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 the appellate authority are not supported by any 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, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-8, dated 26.06.2001 and A-11, dated 25th September, 2001 are quashed and set aside. The disciplinary authority is directed to decide the matter afresh in view of the reply furnished by the petitioner and after taking into consideration the contents of the inquiry report furnished by the inquiry officer by a speaking order, within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 06, 2010. (bhupender)