CWP(T) No. 14463/2008 23.02.2011 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for the respondents According to the petitioner, he stands acquitted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in terms of judgment dated 14.01.2005 (Annexure A-5). In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer also exonerated him. This is evident from inquiry report (Annexure A-6) and the order dated 12.7.2005 (Annexure A-9). However, while passing the order of exoneration the period under which he was put under suspension was directed to be treated as leave of the kind due. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner made a representation which stands rejected by non- speaking orders on 28.11.2005 (Annexure A-15) and 16.5.2006 (Annexure A-17). There is no doubt that the impugned orders do not assign any reason. Petitioner is seeking reliance on the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 328 and the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B Sub Rules (1) (3). 2. Without adverting to the merits of the matter, as prayed, on the short ground that the petitioner’s case was rejected without assigning any reason, the impugned orders dated 28.11.2005 and 16.5.2006 are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s case in light of the relevant law relied upon by the petitioner. Necessary action be positively taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed off. February 23, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.