IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14961/2008 Decided on:29.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Ravi Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner on 4.4.2006. Thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police. The same was rejected by the Inspector General of Police on 24.7.2006. He preferred another appeal before the Director General of Police against the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 24.7.2006. He dismissed the same on 2.12.2006. I have gone through the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 contents of the appeal and appellate order dated 2.12.2006. The order dated 2.12.2006 is neither speaking nor reasoned. The Appellate Authority should have passed a speaking order after taking into consideration all the points urged by the petitioner in his appeal. 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. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A-20/A dated 2.12.2006 is quashed and set aside. The Director General of police is directed to decide the appeal afresh by hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration all the pleas and grounds raised in the appeal. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.6.2010 *awasthi*