CWP(T) No.3431/2008 (OA No. 1175/96) 27.4.2009 Present: Mr. R. S. Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for the respondent Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority vide orders dated 12.4.1994 (Annexure A-15) imposed a penalty. Petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure A-17) which stood decided in terms of orders dated 13.9.1995 (Annexure A-18), which is reproduced as under:- “With reference to the appeal dated 1.10.1994 submitted by you to the Board of Directors of the Corporation against penalty order No.1-18/75-hpmc (Part) 513 dated 12.4.1994, I am directed to inform you that the appeal was placed for consideration of the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 26.6.1995. The decision of the Board of Director’s is conveyed as under for your information:- The case was considered in detail. It was observed that there was no substance in the appeal and that the officer had acted negligently and caused loss to the Corporation. He released consignments from Cold Storage without recovering amount of Rs.73,471.85 as per advice of the Branch Manager, Delhi. The recovery remained pending due to negligence on the part of Shri S. N. Sankhyan and the charge stood substantially established in the inquiry report. The recovery of loss of Rs. 73,471.85 from Shri Sankhyan was therefore quite justified. The Board therefore upheld the penalty order No.1-18/75-hpmc- (Part)513 dated 12.4.1994 and appeal of Shri Sankhyan was rejected.” Evidently, no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. It is not a speaking order. The Apex Court in A. L. Kalra v. 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.” Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, on this short ground alone the impugned order dated 13.9.1995 is quashed with a direction that the respondents shall decide the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today. Needless to add, the respondents shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the same if need so arises. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of Copy dasti. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 27, 2009 (rana)