IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8480 of 2008. Decided on: 06.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Bansi Lal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. Petitioner has been inflicted the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect vide Annexure P-5, dated 25.2.2000. It is a major penalty. Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the imposition of this penalty. The appellate authority has rejected the same vide Annexure P-10 without a speaking, detailed/reasoned order and without taking into consideration the grounds/pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal. It is settled law by now that the orders/decision by the administrative/executive authority/quasi judicial authority must be speaking/reasoned. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota versus Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 have held as under: “13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 19. In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what - 3 - weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court.” 3. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-10 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal afresh by hearing the petitioner and also taking into consideration the grounds/pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal. He shall pass a speaking, detailed and reasoned order, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of the judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 06, 2010. (sck).