IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2277/2008 Reserved on 8.5.2009 Decided on:19.6.2009 Hari Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 16.4.1992. The inquiry was handed over to Sh. P.L. Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Solan. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of permanently forfeiting two years’ service of the petitioner effecting his annual increments and pension. He preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 20.12.1993. Thereafter he filed a mercy petition before the Director General of Police. He dismissed the same on 11.5.1994. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate has strenuously argued that the appellate order Annexure A-4/A dated 20.12.1993 is neither self-contained nor speaking. He has further contended that it is necessary for the appellate authority to pass a speaking and reasoned order. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police (South) dated 20.12.1993 and order dated 18.5.1994 passed by the Director General of Police. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. He has imposed the penalty as discussed hereinabove. It is apparent that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty. The appellate authority has passed a non-speaking order on 20.12.1993. He ought to have decided the same by a self-contained/speaking order. It was not sufficient to state that the issues raised by the petitioner have been studied by him. He was required to discuss all the points raised in the memorandum of appeal. The order passed by the appellate authority must show due application of mind. The disposal of the appeal has serious ramifications on the employee. These orders are open to judicial review by the higher Courts. It may not be necessary to give very length and elaborate reasons. However, some reasons must be assigned showing due application of mind. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority should be speaking one. Their Lordships have held as under: 3 “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 been 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 inferences 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 a substitute for legal proof. The petitioner had preferred a mercy petition before the appellate authority i.e. Director General of Police. He has also not assigned any reasons while upholding the order of the appellate authority. It appears from the order passed by the Director General of Police that the petitioner has also relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has distinguished the same without referring even to the citation. It further shows non-application of mind by the Director General of Police. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240 have held that though the order of affirmation need not contain elaborate 4 reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean, it need not contain any reasons thereon. Their Lordships have held as under: “In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover case has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divl. Forest Officer v. Madhusudhan Rao (vide SCC para 20:CJ para 19), and in M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India (vide SCC para 6: AIR para 6) etc. In the present case, since the appellate authority’s order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of mind. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation. 5 Hence, we agree with the High Court that reasons should have been contained in the appellate authority’s order, but we cannot understand why the High Court has set aside the order of the disciplinary authority, in addition to setting aside the appellate order.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-4 dated 20.12.1993 and A-5 dated 18.5.1994 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh within a period of eight weeks from today. He shall pass a self-contained/speaking order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19.6. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*