IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 3137 of 2008. Decided on: 21st September, 2010. ___________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh and others. …Petitioners. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. B.N. Mishra, Advocate. For respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioners. The inquiry officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18th March, 1994 imposed the penalty upon him, which reads thus: “That in addition to recovery of the Govt. loss mentioned against S/Sh. Bhagat Singh Deputy Ranger, Karam Dass Deputy Ranger and Kedar Singh Forest Guard, they are also reduced to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect:- Name of official Govt. loss recoverable. 1. Sh. Bhagat Singh. D.R. Rs.3212.00 2. “ Karam Dass D.R. Rs.1570.00 3. “ Kedar Singh, F.G. Rs.687.00” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty vide order dated 18th March, 1994 to the competent authority. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 24.02.1996 (Annexure A-6) without a speaking order. It is now well settled that the order passed by the appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 24.02.1996 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to rehear the appeal filed by the petitioners’ father and decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order after hearing the petitioners within a period two months after the production of a certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 21st September, 2010. (bhupender)