1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7338/2008 Decided on: 9.12.2010 Keshav Ram ……….Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, H.R.T.C. and another. ...….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Nemo. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-corporation with effect from 3.1.1985. He was served with a show cause notice on 8.1.1998 whereby he was granted 15 days time to file reply. Petitioner submitted the detailed reply vide Annexure PE on 21.1.1998. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were retrenched by the Regional Manager by invoking the provisions of 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner was a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. 2 regularly appointed conductor. It was necessary for the respondent- corporation to hold inquiry under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the basis of misconduct quoted in Annexure PD dated 8.1.1998. It is settled law by now that before the employer holds that it is reasonable impracticable to hold an inquiry, he has to record specific findings to this effect. Merely stating that it is not practicable to hold inquiry is not the compliance with the principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner was a regularly appointed Conductor, his services could not be terminated by invoking the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. This Court in CWP (T) No. 7897/2008, titled as Hem Lata versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 19.6.2009 has held that once the misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner, domestic inquiry was required to be held as per rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 3. The petitioner has also filed an appeal and the same has been rejected without a speaking order by the Appellate Authority on 3.3.2001. It is settled law by now that the Appellate Authority must pass a speaking/reasoned order and all the grounds/pleas taken in the appeal must be considered while deciding the same. 3 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure PF dated 17.11.1998 and 3.3.2001, respectively are quashed and set aside. Petitioner will be deemed to be in service with all the consequential benefits. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 9.12.2010 *awasthi*