IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4191/2008 (OA 285/97) Date of Decision : May 4, 2009 Sh. Ramesh Chand Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. through its Managing Director, Shimla-1 and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Shri Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) While serving as driver, disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 of CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the petitioner for having committed the alleged misconduct. Memorandum containing articles of charge was served upon him on 14.7.1993. Petitioner’s defence did not find favour with the disciplinary authority hence the action was pursued and an inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 14.7.1993. The petitioner was served with the memorandum dated 18.11.1995 proposing to impose the penalty. Based on the material on record the disciplinary authority 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 vide order dated 22.6.1995 imposed major penalty in the following terms: “Now, therefore, after careful consideration of the whole record, reply etc., the undersigned in exercise of the powers vested in him under C.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, hereby imposes the penalty of Dismissal from service upon Shri Ramesh Chand, driver, HRTC, Rohroo Unit.” The petitioner represented against the same by way of appeal. The appellate authority passed order dated 5.10.1996 which is reproduced in verbatim as under: “From: Managing Director, Himachal road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171003 To The Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171004 Dated: Shimla-171003, the 5th Oct., 1996. Subject: Appeal of Shri Ramesh Chand, Ex-Driver against the orders of Divisional Manager, Shimla-171004 Sir, Reference your letter No. DM(N)1-E(DVR)/ Ramesh Chand/95-APL-8578 dated 18.08.95 on the above cited subject. The appeal preferred (8/95) by Shri Ramesh Chand, Ex-Driver has duly been considered by the competent authority and rejected. The appellant may also be informed accordingly. The case file No.DM(N)1-E-DVR/Ramesh Chand/ 3 95-Disp(pages 1 to 9 and noting sheet pages 1 to 3) is also returned herewith. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Dy. Divisional Manager (Admn) Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171003.” The order of rejection is obviously unreasoned and non speaking one. The record does not reveal any reasons either. The Apex Court in A.K. Kalra versus Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 316 has held as under: “An order imposing penalty by a quasi-judicial tribunal must be supported by reasons in support of its conclusions. A speaking order will at its best be reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. If reasons for an order are given, there will be less scope for arbitrary or partial exercise of power and the orders ex facie will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by authority passing the order.” On this ground alone order dated 5.10.1996 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today. Needless to add, it shall be open for the parties to place such other material as may be relevant for adjudication of the appeal. The appellate authority shall pass a speaking order which shall also be communicated to the 4 petitioner. Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 4, 2009 (PK)