IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.- 10944 of 2008. Decided on : 03.09.2009. Shri Vijay Kumar Bansal …….. Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 25.6.1994. The inquiry officer was appointed. He was permitted to make representation against the inquiry report on 10.9.1997. He filed representation on 5.11.1997. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner on 19.12.1997. The second charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22.4.2000. The penalty was imposed upon the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. : 2 : petitioner on 21.4.2003. He preferred a statutory appeal against the same. It was rejected by the appellate authority on 11.6.2004. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the penalties imposed upon the petitioner on 19.12.1997 and 24.4.2003 are bad in law. He has vehemently argued that the procedure prescribed under the law has not been complied with by the inquiry officer while holding the inquiry. He lastly contended that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the imposition of penalty has been rejected without a speaking order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The first disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 25.6.1994, which culminated in the imposition of penalty on 19.12.1997. The present petition has been filed in the month of July, 2004. As far as the imposition of penalty on 19.12.1997 is concerned, the petitioner should have challenged the same within a reasonable period. In view of the delay and latches, the Court shall not interfere in the imposition of penalty on 19.12.1997. The second disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 22.4.2000, which culminated in the imposition of penalty on 21.4.2003. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on 11.6.2004 without a speaking order. It is necessary for the appellate authority to record reasons and to pass : 3 : a self contained order. 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 Supreme Court Cases 240 have held as under: “5. 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. 6. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divl. Forest Officer V. Madhusudhan Rao (vide SCC para 20: JT 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. 7. In the present case, since the appellate authority’s order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of mind. : 4 : 8. 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 minimizes 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. 9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case it has been observed that: (SCC P.613, para 36) “36…..The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority.” : 5 : Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order Annexure A-10, dated 11.06.2004 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh and dispose of the same by a self contained order. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 3, 2009. (bhupender)