IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11126 of 2008. Decided on: 20th December, 2010. Dr. Vinod Kashyap. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner was called upon to file reply before the imposition of penalty. He filed the reply. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2003 (Annexure A-5), He preferred an appeal against the order dated 10.02.2003 vide Annexure A-6, dated 26.03.2003. The same was rejected by the Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 15th March, 2004 (Annexure A-7) without a speaking order. It is now well settled that the order passed by the appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof. 3. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have - 3 - held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 15th March, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to rehear the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.03.2003 and decide the same afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be heard in person. While deciding the appeal, the appellate authority shall also take into consideration that the representation of the petitioner was acceded to and he was adjusted at Rampur. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 20, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -