IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10318 of 2008. Decided on: 23.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He was awarded the penalty of forfeiture of three years service permanently. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 25th March, 2003 without a speaking/ detailed/reasoned order. It is settled law by now that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal must pass a speaking/detailed order after taking into consideration all the grounds/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2, dated 25th March, 2003 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to hear and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal, within a period of two months after production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 23, 2010. (sck).