IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6957 of 2008. Decided on: 15.06.2010. Seesh Ram Thakur. …Petitioner. -Versus- H.P. State Electricity Board and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The inquiry officer was appointed. He furnished the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has imposed the following penalty upon the petitioner on 26th September, 2003:- “That the pay of Shri Sees Ram Thakur, HDM be reduced by Three Stages in the time scale of pay for a period of Two years. It is further proposed that Shri Sees Ram Thakur will not earn increments of pay during the pay reduced and that on the expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his further increments of his pay.” 2. He preferred an appeal against the order dated 26th September, 2003 before the appellate authority. The same was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - decided by the appellate authority vide order dated 26th May, 2005. I have gone through the contents of the appellate order. The appellate order is neither reasoned nor detailed. It is settled law by now that the appellate order should be reasoned and must reflect due application of mind. It is also expected from the appellate authority to take into consideration all the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. The purpose of the order to be reasoned and detailed, is that the same is open to the judicial review. 3. 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 - 4. 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 held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Anneuxure A-8, dated 26.05.2005 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner and shall take into consideration all the grounds/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal and decide the same within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 15, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -