IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.6560/2008 Decided on:25.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Nitin R. Shah. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Procession Corporation Limited and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty upon the petitioner. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation rejected the appeal in its meeting held on 25.9.1998 and conveyed to the petitioner on 16.1.1999. Order dated 16.1.1999 is neither speaking nor reasoned. The Appellate Authority should have passed a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? speaking order after taking into consideration all the points urged in the appeal dated 5.9.1997. 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. Accordingly, letter dated 16.1.1999 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to rehear the appeal strictly in accordance with law and pass a speaking/reasoned order after taking into consideration all the grounds/pleas raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. The decision shall be arrived at within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner and while doing so, the Appellate Authority shall not take into consideration the conviction of the petitioner against which he has already preferred an appeal. 4. In view of above directions/observations, the appeal is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 25.8.2010 *awasthi*