PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 15949 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 *** Director, Public Instructions U.T.Chandigarh Vs. Sham Lal and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover. *** Present: Shri Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition calls in question two orders dated 23.01.2009 and the other dated 20.03.2009 whereby the Tribunal has set aside order of removal dated 16.06.2006 passed by the Director, Public Instructions, Chandigarh Administration in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970 as applicable to the employees of U.T. Chandigarh against Shri Sham Lal who during the relevant period was working as Work Experience Instructor in Government High School, Karsan. A reading of the orders impugned in this petition would show that the Tribunal has observed that the orders passed by the Director Public Instructions and also by the Education Secretary dated 23.11.2006 to be totally a non speaking orders. It has, accordingly, set aside both the orders and remanded the case back to the Director, Public Instructions to pass a fresh order on the subject. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal as also those passed by the Director, Public Instructions and the Appellate Authority. Both the orders are indeed non-speaking orders in as much as they do not disclose the defence set up by the employee nor do they discuss the reasons why the same was found to be unsatisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that since the employee had admitted the embezzlement. there was no need to elaborate that aspect while removing him from service or while dismissing his appeal. We do not think so. The orders passed by the Director, Public Instructions and the appellate authority do not even refer to the so called admission made by the employee regarding his having committed embezzlement of funds entrusted to him. At any rate, the orders ought to have demonstrated application of mind by -2- the authorities concerned to the defence set up by the delinquent official and given reasons why they do not find the same satisfactory. Simply saying that the explanation was unsatisfactory even does not disclose as to what was the explanation and why it was unsatisfactory would not be appropriate exercise of the powers vested in the Director, Public Instructions or the authorities dismissing the appeal. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal especially when the Tribunal has simply directed the punishing authority i.e. The Director, Public Instructions to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, which necessarily means that he may ought to pass a speaking order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Mahesh Grover) October 30 2009 Judge Malik