IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4274 of 2008. Decided on: 24.04.2009. Shri Ram Kumar. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Raksh Pal Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has impugned the order dated 11th December, 1996 passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.1188/- from him. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the respondent against petitioner for the alleged mis-conduct. Inquiry Officer, by way of his report Annexure A-4, dated 31st December, 1995 absolved the petitioner of the charges, but, however, the disciplinary authority, while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer issued notice Annexure A-5, calling upon 1Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - the petitioner to file his response to the proposed penalty. Petitioner duly replied to the same vide Annexure A-6, dated 14th July, 1996. Disciplinary authority passed the impugned order which is reproduced as under: “WHEREAS Sh. Ram Kumar, Sr. Assistant (Retd.), HP PWD, was chargesheeted under rule-14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide this Department Memorandum of even number dated the 13th July, 1995. AND WHEREAS the Commissioner Departmental Enquiries Himachal Pradesh was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charge leveled against Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sr. Assistant (Retd.) vide order of even number dated 13th September, 1995. AND WHEREAS the Inquiring Authority has submitted his inquiry report vide his letter No.Conf-EQ-13/95-Vig. CDE through the Vigilance Department vide their letter No.Per(Vig.) F-3(PWD)- 73/93 dated the 11th April, 1996, according to which the charge levelled against Sh. Ram Kumar, Sr. Assistant (Retd) has not been proved. AND WHEREAS on careful consideration of the said inquiry report, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and holds that the conflicting statement of PW-1 and PW-3 show that Sh. Manoj Kumar perhaps did not work at any place. Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sr. Assistant (Retd.) thus violated the provision of Conduct Rules and the charge against him is established. Hence it has been decided to impose the penalty of “Recovery of Loss” upon Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sr. Assistant (Retd.) by taking a lenient view. NOW, THEREFORE, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule-9 I(b) of CCS - 3 - (Pension) Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 (read with Rule 14 & 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) hereby imposes the penalty of recovery of Rs.1188/- upon Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Sr. Assistant (Retd.).” Evidently, the disciplinary authority has passed a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The Apex Court in A.L. Kalra versus Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. 1984 (3) SCC 316 has held that where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to satisfy and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct. The Apex Court has further held that 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 of arbitrary or partial exercise of power and the orders ex facie will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by authority passing the same. The findings on the charge are also not definite. The Disciplinary Authority has ventured into a realm of speculation, assumptions and presumptions. On these grounds alone, the impugned order is quashed. Respondent is directed to pass a fresh order by assigning reasons after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today. - 4 - It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all pleas which have been raised herein before the disciplinary authority. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed. April 24, 2009. (Sanjay Karol) (sck). Judge.