IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 3954/2008 Decided on:23.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Shakti Singh. …Petitioner. Versus The Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Lal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General . _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of withholding of next three increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 6.9.1995. He preferred an appeal before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 31.10.1995. The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Appellate Authority modified the penalty by substituting the penalty of one increment with cumulative effect instead of three increments, as imposed vide order dated 6.9.1995. Order dated 1.7.1996 is neither speaking nor reasoned. The Appellate Authority should have passed a speaking order after taking into consideration all the points urged in the appeal dated 31.10.1995. 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 held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-30 dated 1.7.1996 is quashed and set aside. Appellate Authority is directed to rehear and decide the appeal by passing a speaking order. Petitioner shall also be heard in person. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.4.2010 *awasthi*