IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4275/2008 (OA 663/97) Date of Decision : April 23, 2009 Sh. Satish Chander Datta Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhubnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for the respondents No. 1. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.10.1996 imposing a penalty of withholding of two increments of pay without cumulative effect; memorandum dated 30.7.96 (Annexue A-11) as also memorandum dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure A-12). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct/misbehaviour. Memorandum 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and articles of charge were served upon him vide Anneuxre A-12 dated 12.8.1996. The petitioner responded to the same by filing a detailed reply (Annexure A-13) on 26.8.1996. The disciplinary authority passed the order imposing minor penalty on the petitioner. The said order dated 14.10.1996 in toto reads as under: “Whereas Shri S.C. Dutta, Lecturer, Chemistry Govt. Decree College, Hamirpur was charge-sheeted under Rule-16 of the C.C.S.(C.C&A) Rules, 1965 for minor penalty for wilful absence vide this department Memorandum of even number dated 12.8.96. And whereas Shri S.C. Dutta, Lecturer Chemistry was asked to submit his written statement within 10 days against the proposed charge-sheet. A reply received from Shri S.C. Dutta has been considered by me and I am satisfied that the above mentioned lecturer remained willfully absent and was also negligent in discharging his duties and failed to maintain devotion to duty. However, considering all aspects of the matter and taking a lenient view, minor penalty of withholding of two increments of pay without cumulative effect is hereby imposed on said Shri S.C. Dutta, Lecturer Chemistry. The period of absence w.e.f. 24.1.1996 to 16.6.1996 shall be treated as dies-non.” Perusal of the same only shows that the order has been passed without proper application of mind. In any event it is a non speaking order. The authorities have not dealt with the issues, factual and legal raised by the petitioner in his response. 3 The Apex Court in A.K. Kalra versus Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 316 has held as under: “An order imposing penalty by a quasi-judicial tribunal must be supported by reasons in support of its conclusions. A speaking order will at its best be reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. If reasons for an order are given, there will be less scope for arbitrary or partial exercise of power and the orders ex facie will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by authority passing the order.” On this ground alone impugned order dated 14.10.1996 is quashed. The respondents are, however, directed to pass a fresh order on or before 31st July, 2009. Liberty granted to the parties to place such other additional material as may be available with them within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to add the authority shall pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Court if need so arises. The respondents in their reply have also stated as under: “That in view of the submissions made above, the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this para except that the salary due and admissible for the period w.e.f. 17.6.1996 to 30.6.1996, which will be paid to the applicant.” Since the petition was filed in the year 1997 it is not clear from the record as to whether the same stands disbursed to the 4 petitioner or not. It is also directed that if not already disbursed, the respondents shall also do the same before 31.7.2009. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 23, 2009 (PK)