CWP (T) No. 5013 of 2008 13.5.2010 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents. Petitioner was working as Inspector, Grade-I, Cooperative Societies. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him with respect to his misconduct. The Enquiry officer conducted the inquiry and concluded that charges against the petitioner were not proved. 2. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty vide office order dated 15.6.1994. The said order reads as under:- “Whereas Sh. Manmohan Lal, Inspector Grade-I, Co-operative Societies Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour was served charge sheet under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Central and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide this Office memo of even No. dated 2.4.1992. Whereas Sh. Manmohan Lal, Inspector Grade-I vide this reply dated 13.4.1992 did not accept the charge levied against him. Therefore in order to examine the said charges Enquiry officer was appointed vide this office Order of even No. dated 19.11.1993. The Enquiry Officer was submitted his Enquiry report according to which charges levied on the said official cannot be proved. Sh.Manmohan Lal, Inspector Grade-I intentionally became member of two co-operative societies in order to obtain loan and the state official being Inspector Co- operative Department obtained loan for house building under agricultural debt relief scheme and obtained benefit of waiving of loan under said scheme. The statement of the state official to the effect that he was not knowing about waiving of the loan is incorrect and unbelievable. In addition to this the charged officer has no agricultural land in the area of “the Paona Gram Co-operative Society’. Therefore, it is evident that the state official misused this power of his post in order to obtain the loan. Therefore on the basis of above reasons I do not agree with the Enquiry report. Sh.Manmohan Lal Sharma, Inspector Grade-I being Govt. employee has acted in indecent manner. Therefore taking the lenient view in the matter, I under Rule -15(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 orders to stop one increment of Sh.Manmohan Lal Sharma, Inspector Grade-I, with cumulative effect.” 3. The petitioner also filed an appeal which also was summarily rejected by a non-speaking order dated 19.1.1996 (Annexure R-1. This order communicated to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition reads as under:- “In reference to your letter No.4-528/67-Coop. dated 20.10.1995 on the above subject, I am directed to say that after considering the appeal of Shri Man Mohan Sharma, Inspector Grade-I, the appeal has been rejected.” 4. The Appellate Authority has not assigned any reasons while dismissing the appeal. On this short ground alone, the order dated 19.1.1996 is quashed. The present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Opportunity of hearing/representation be afforded to the petitioner before deciding the appeal. A copy of the order containing reasons by also supplied. In the appeal it shall be open for the petitioner to raise all grounds, including non-issuance of notice prior to passing of the order imposing the penalty. 5. Petition is disposed of with the following observations. 13th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.