IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 2231 of 2008. Decided on: 14.06.2010. Man Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. K.S. Rathore, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He was served with a charge-sheet. Petitioner made certain admissions, on the basis of which, the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority on 11.04.1990. He preferred an appeal before the appellant authority on 24.05.1990. The same was decided by the appellate authority on 17.07.1990. I have gone through the appellate order. The same is not a reasoned or detailed order. It is now well settled that the appellate authority has to take into 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - consideration all the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal while deciding the same. The purpose of the order to be reasoned and detailed is that the same is open to the judicial review. In case the order passed by the appellate authority is not a reasoned or detailed order, it becomes difficult for the Court to determine whether there is application of mind or whether the points raised in the memorandum of appeal have been taken into consideration or not. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure –PA, dated 17.07.1993 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24.05.1990 afresh after hearing the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 14, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 -